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 brought an end to an eight-year-long matrimonial dispute by granting a divorce and awarding the estranged wife a flat in Mumbai as part of the alimony. However, the Court turned down her additional claims for ₹12 crore, a BMW car, and further financial compensation.
The bench found these demands to be excessive and unjustified, particularly in view of a prior settlement that had been mutually agreed upon by both parties. The case had attracted widespread public attention after the wife sought ₹12 crore and a Mumbai apartment from her estranged husband.
During the July 21 hearing, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about the wife’s demands, pointing to the short duration of the marriage and her own professional qualifications.
On Tuesday, a bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage, citing the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship.
The Court listed the following reasons for rejecting the wife’s renewed financial demands:
1. No Alimony Sought During Initial Settlement
In 2022, the wife entered into a comprehensive mutual settlement, agreeing to receive a flat in Mumbai along with two parking spots. Notably, she did not make any claim for ₹12 crore or request any further maintenance at that time.
“As far as permanent alimony is concerned, the respondent had no such claim when entering into a settlement,” the Court noted.
2. Allegations of Coercion and Fraud Unsubstantiated
The wife later alleged that she was pressured into signing the settlement. However, the Court found no credible evidence to support these claims and deemed the allegations unproven.
“The allegation of misrepresentation and fraud are blandly raised without any substantiation,” the top court held.
3. Wife’s Education and Employment Undermine Need for Ongoing Support
Recognising the wife’s academic qualifications and stable employment record, the Court held that she was financially independent and not in need of lifelong monetary 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.
4. Mumbai Flat Considered Fair and Sufficient Settlement
The husband had agreed to transfer a premium apartment in Kalpataru Habitat, Mumbai, along with two parking spots, to his wife. The Court viewed this as a just and reasonable settlement that sufficiently 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.
5. Husband Agreed to Settle ₹25.9 Lakh in Housing Dues
To protect the wife from possible eviction, the Court took note of the husband’s undertaking to pay ₹25.9 lakh in outstanding dues owed to the housing society of the Mumbai flat.
“The appellant who was present before us in-person has agreed to pay up the entire maintenance charges as on date.”
6. Substantial Decline in Husband’s Income
The Court observed that the husband was no longer working at Citi Bank and that his annual income had drastically decreased—from more than ₹2.5 crore to under ₹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 Found Inadequate to Establish Income
The wife relied on the husband’s LinkedIn profile to assert that he continued to earn a high income. However, the Court rejected this as unreliable and insufficient proof of his current financial status.
“We refuse to place any reliance on the ‘LinkedIn’ profile,” the Bench made it clear.
8. Additional Demands Considered Excessive and Unjust
The Court found the earlier settlement to be fair and concluded that imposing further financial obligations would be unreasonable—especially in light of the husband’s duty to care for 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 judgment, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and barred both parties from initiating any further litigation arising out of the marriage.
The divorce will be finalized upon the transfer of the apartment and clearance of all outstanding dues by August 30.
