The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to end the marriage, holding that the relationship had irretrievably broken down.
On Monday, the Supreme Court concluded an eight-year-long matrimonial dispute by granting a divorce and awarding the estranged wife a residential flat in Mumbai as part of the alimony settlement. However, it rejected her additional claims for ₹12 crore, a BMW car, and further financial relief.
The bench deemed these demands excessive and unwarranted, especially in light of an earlier settlement that had been mutually agreed upon by both parties. The case had drawn significant public attention after the wife demanded ₹12 crore and a Mumbai apartment from her estranged husband.
During the hearing on July 21, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the legitimacy of the wife’s claims, particularly given the brief duration of the marriage and her own professional qualifications.
On Tuesday, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to formally dissolve the marriage, citing an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship.
The Court outlined the following reasons for dismissing the wife’s fresh financial demands:
1. No Alimony Claimed in Original Settlement
In 2022, the wife consented to a comprehensive mutual settlement, under which she was to receive a Mumbai flat along with two parking spaces. Importantly, she did not seek ₹12 crore or any additional maintenance as part of that agreement.
“As far as permanent alimony is concerned, the respondent had no such claim when entering into a settlement,” the Court noted.
2. Claims of Coercion and Fraud Found Baseless
The wife subsequently alleged that she had been coerced into signing the settlement. However, the Court found no substantial evidence to support these assertions and concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated.
“The allegation of misrepresentation and fraud are blandly raised without any substantiation,” the top court held.
3. Wife’s Qualifications and Career Indicate Financial Independence
Taking into account the wife’s educational background and consistent employment history, the Court concluded that she was self-sufficient and did not require continued financial assistance.
“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.
4. Mumbai Apartment Deemed Adequate and Equitable Compensation
The husband had consented to transfer a high-end apartment in Kalpataru Habitat, Mumbai, along with two parking spaces, to his wife. The Court regarded this arrangement as fair and sufficient to address her post-divorce requirements.
“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.
5. Husband Undertook to Clear ₹25.9 Lakh in Housing Society Dues
To safeguard the wife from potential eviction, the Court acknowledged the husband’s commitment to pay ₹25.9 lakh in pending dues to the housing society associated with the Mumbai apartment.
“The appellant who was present before us in-person has agreed to pay up the entire maintenance charges as on date.”
6. Significant Drop in Husband’s Earnings
The Court noted that the husband was no longer employed at Citi Bank and that his annual income had sharply fallen—from over ₹2.5 crore to less than ₹18 lakh in recent years.
“We find absolutely no reason to disbelieve the appellant’s contention that he is no more in employment with Citi Bank,” the Court said.
7. LinkedIn Profile Deemed Unreliable Evidence of Income
The wife cited the husband’s LinkedIn profile to claim he was still earning a substantial income. However, the Court dismissed this as inadequate and not a credible basis to determine his present financial position.
“We refuse to place any reliance on the ‘LinkedIn’ profile,” the Bench made it clear.
8. Further Financial Demands Ruled Unreasonable and Unfair
The Court held that the original settlement was equitable and determined that any additional monetary claims would be excessive—particularly given the husband’s responsibility to support his autistic child.
“The terms of the settlement agreed upon according to us, does justice to the estranged wife and does not unduly burden the husband.”
As part of its ruling, the Court quashed the criminal cases filed under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and prohibited both parties from pursuing any further legal proceedings related to the marriage.
The divorce will be formalized once the apartment is transferred and all pending dues are cleared by August 30.
