Much to the relief of the defendant, the Supreme Court brought to an end an eight-year-old matrimonial dispute by dissolving the marriage of a man and his estranged wife by granting the latter a flat in Mumbai as alimony but turning down her demands for Rs 12 crore, a BMW car and additional compensation.
The Court found the claims disproportionate and unsupported, given an earlier settlement already agreed to by both parties.
The case had attracted substantial attention after the wife had raised a demand of Rs12 crore and a flat in Mumbai from the estranged husband.When the matter was heard on July 21, the top court had taken exception to the wife's demand, given the short duration of the marriage and the woman’s professional background.
On Tuesday, the bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to end the marriage, holding that the relationship had irretrievably broken down.The Court gave what it contended valid reasons for rejecting the wife’s fresh demands. It maintained no alimony was claimed when the agreement was signed.The wife had signed a detailed mutual settlement agreement in 2022, under which she accepted a Mumbai flat and two parking spots. No claim of Rs 12 crore or additional maintenance was made at that time.
“As far as permanent alimony is concerned, the respondent had no such claim when entering into a settlement," the Court noted.
Besides, allegations of coercion and fraud lacked evidence, even as the wife later alleged that she signed the settlement under duress, but the Court said these were unproven and unaccompanied by any material.
“The allegation of misrepresentation and fraud are blandly raised without any substantiation," the top court held.Moreover, the Court also contended that the wife is qualified and was employed. The Court took note of the wife's educational qualifications and work history, holding that she was not in need of lifelong financial support.“The respondent-wife is also a graduate Engineer with a Post-Graduate qualification in Management and was admittedly working, even at the time of the estrangement,” the Bench stated.The Mumbai apartment was sufficient settlement.
The husband had agreed to gift her a prime flat in Kalpataru Habitat in Mumbai, with two car parks. The Court called this a reasonable arrangement that met her post-divorce needs.“The gift of the said property by the appellant to the respondent would reasonably take care of the respondent-wife even after divorce,” the Court opined. Husband agreed to clear Rs 25.9 lakh in housing dues
The Court ensured the wife would not face eviction by recording the husband’s undertaking to pay all arrears owed to the housing society where the flat is located.
“The appellant who was present before us in-person has agreed to pay up the entire maintenance charges as on date.”
The Apex court also took note of the fact that husband's income had dropped sharply. From earning over Rs 2.5 crore annually while at Citi Bank, his income had fallen to under Rs 18 lakh in recent years. The Court accepted he was no longer employed at the bank.
“We find absolutely no reason to disbelieve the appellant’s contention that he is no more in employment with Citi Bank,” the Court said. LinkedIn profile was not reliable proof of income.The wife had relied on his LinkedIn profile to argue he was still lucratively employed but the Court refused to accept that as credible evidence.
“We refuse to place any reliance on the ‘LinkedIn’ profile,” the Bench made it clear. Fresh demands would place unfair burden
The Court concluded that the earlier settlement was fair and that any further financial claims would be excessive and unjustified, especially since the husband also has an autistic child to support.
Follow us
