On July 21, the Supreme Court of India reserved its order in a high-profile matrimonial case where a woman asked for ₹12 crore, a luxury BMW, and a flat in Mumbai as permanent alimony from her estranged husband.
A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, raised serious concerns about the woman’s demands, especially since the marriage lasted only 18 months. The court also took into account the woman’s professional background—she holds an MBA and has experience working in the IT sector.
The Chief Justice asked her directly about the claim. The woman, who appeared in person, confirmed that she wanted a flat in Kalpataru (a premium residential area in Mumbai) and ₹12 crore as a one-time settlement. The court was surprised by the high amount and questioned why she wasn’t working.
“You have an MBA and IT experience. You can work in places like Bengaluru or Hyderabad. Why don’t you work?” asked CJI Gavai.
She claimed her husband tried to annul the marriage by calling her mentally ill. “He said I was schizophrenic. Do I look unwell to you?” she asked the court.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, who represented the husband, said the woman was fully capable of earning and should not expect full financial support forever. She added that her demands were unreasonable.
The court then asked for the husband’s income records to assess a fair settlement. It was revealed that he earned ₹2.5 crore and received a bonus of ₹1 crore in the financial year 2015–16. The woman was also living in the same disputed flat, which includes two parking spaces—both of which could be rented out for income.
The Bench noted, “Everything in Mumbai has value.” The Chief Justice also clarified that the woman had no legal right to claim properties owned by her husband’s father.
The court gave her two choices—either take full ownership of the flat with no legal issues or accept ₹4 crore as a final settlement. CJI Gavai stressed that people who are educated and able to work should not choose unemployment just to demand large sums in alimony.
At one point, the woman alleged that her lawyer was influenced by the opposing side. The Chief Justice firmly denied this and told her to focus on finding a fair solution.
When the woman said the FIRs filed against her could affect her chances of finding work, the court said it could consider cancelling those FIRs if necessary.
Before reserving the final decision, the Chief Justice concluded,
“You are educated. You should not depend on handouts. You should earn and live with dignity.”
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
