The Supreme Court on Tuesday brought closure to a protracted matrimonial dispute by granting divorce to a couple and directing the husband to transfer ownership of a Mumbai flat to his former wife as part of the alimony arrangement. The matter had gained attention after the woman, an MBA graduate and former IT professional, demanded ₹12 crore and a flat from her estranged husband.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran finalised the terms of settlement, which included handing over a flat located in the Kalpataru housing complex in Mumbai.
The court proceedings revealed that the marriage had lasted only 18 months. During the hearing on July 21, the Bench had expressed concern over the quantum of the wife’s financial demands, especially considering her qualifications and brief marital cohabitation.
“You are employable in places like Bengaluru and Hyderabad. Why not work?” the Chief Justice had asked, noting the woman’s educational background in management and her experience in the IT sector.
He pointedly remarked, “It lasted just 18 months. And you are seeking a crore a month?”
Appearing for the husband, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, assisted by Advocate-on-Record Prabhjit Jauhar, argued that the woman’s demands were excessive and legally unsustainable. “She is educated and capable of working,” Divan submitted.
The Bench had earlier asked for the husband’s income tax records to help assess a reasonable settlement and made it clear that the woman could not claim rights over her father-in-law’s property.
Eventually, the court gave her two options: either take the Kalpataru flat free from any encumbrance, or accept a one-time payment of ₹4 crore. She opted for the flat.
Chief Justice Gavai used the occasion to stress the importance of financial self-reliance, observing, “You are well educated. You should not be depending on handouts. You should earn and live with dignity.”
He further noted, “Those who are educated and capable should not choose unemployment by choice and then claim exaggerated maintenance.”
The matter was settled with the mutual consent of both parties, and the decree of divorce was granted accordingly.
