The Supreme Court has rejected a ₹12 crore alimony claim and demand for a BMW made by a woman following the breakdown of her marriage. The bench, presided over by the Chief Justice of India and two judicial colleagues, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage and deliver a final settlement, directing the husband to gift his estranged wife a flat in Mumbai valued at ₹4 crore and two parking spots. The Court dismissed her additional demands as excessive, noting the short duration of the marriage and her professional qualifications and earning capacity.
The woman had initially entered into a mutual settlement agreement in 2022, under which she accepted the apartment and parking spaces. No claim for ₹12 crore or a luxury car was made at that time. When she later sought these additional amounts, the Court emphasized that the settlement had been mutually agreed and devoid of coercion or fraud. Allegations of duress or misrepresentation were unsubstantiated and lacked supporting evidence. The bench upheld the mutual agreement as a fair and binding arrangement that effectively addressed her post-divorce needs.
The Supreme Court notably refused to rely on the husband’s LinkedIn profile, which was presented as evidence of his supposed wealth and continued employment. The bench held that public domain profiles cannot be treated as credible proof of current earnings. It accepted the husband’s testimony that he was no longer employed by the bank where he had previously earned over ₹2.5 crore, and that his income had substantially declined to less than ₹18 lakh in recent years.
In light of the above, the Court held that the flat gifted to the wife was a reasonable and adequate settlement. It directed the husband to execute the gift deed before a specified date and pay outstanding dues to the housing society. It further dismissed claims for any further alimony or compensation, pointing out that the wife, being an MBA-qualified IT professional, had the capacity to be self-sufficient. The bench observed that significant financial awards in such a short marriage would be disproportionate and unfairly burdensome, especially given the husband’s current financial obligations and his responsibility to support an autistic child.
All pending legal proceedings between the parties, including criminal charges under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, were quashed. The Court imposed a finality clause, barring any further litigation relating to their marriage. The judgment underscores the principle that spousal claims must align with actual need, professional capability, and duration of marital union, and that evidence of financial status must meet admissible standards rather than relying on social media assertions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.