The Supreme Court reserved its order in a contentious matrimonial dispute where a woman sought ₹12 crore in maintenance, a high-end flat in Mumbai’s Kalpataru project, and a BMW — all following a marriage that lasted only 18 months.

During the hearing, the bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices B.R. Gavai and P.S. Narasimha expressed concern over the extent of her demands. The court questioned whether such claims were reasonable, especially given the short duration of the marriage and the woman’s own qualifications as an IT professional with an MBA.

Bench highlights woman’s education and employability

Observing that she had the credentials and prospects to work in major IT hubs like Bengaluru and Hyderabad, the court asked why she had chosen not to take up employment. The justices stressed that she could not expect to live off her estranged husband indefinitely, especially when she was capable of earning independently.

The woman argued that her husband was wealthy and had even sought annulment of their marriage on the grounds that she was schizophrenic — an allegation she strongly denied in court. She also alleged that he had influenced her legal counsel, a claim which the bench firmly rejected.

Property, parking space and tax records examined

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the husband, submitted the woman’s income tax returns and detailed financial records. She pointed to the husband’s substantial income in 2015–16, which included a salary of ₹2.5 crore and a bonus of ₹1 crore. She also flagged concerns over alleged proxy businesses and presented relevant balance sheets.

Divan added that apart from residing in the flat, the woman also had access to two car parking slots, which, in Mumbai’s real estate context, could generate income on their own. The court acknowledged this and remarked that even parking spaces could be monetised in the city.

Court offers flat or ₹4 crore settlement

In response to the woman's demand for both the flat and ₹12 crore, the court proposed an alternative: either accept the flat free of all encumbrances or take ₹4 crore in settlement and seek suitable employment. It also assured her that any FIRs or charges filed against her could be quashed to improve her job prospects.

In closing, the Chief Justice reminded her that, as an educated individual, she should not rely solely on alimony but should instead pursue self-reliance through work.

The matter was concluded, and the order was formally reserved.