The Supreme Court of India, while hearing a matrimonial dispute, strongly questioned an MBA-qualified woman’s demand for a house and ₹12 crore in alimony after a marriage that lasted only 18 months. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai observed that a highly educated woman cannot choose to sit idle and must also work. The court has reserved its order after proposing a settlement involving either a flat or a lump sum of ₹4 crore, coupled with the quashing of an FIR against the wife.
Background of the Case:
The matter before the Supreme Court arose from a matrimonial dispute between a couple whose marriage lasted for approximately 18 months. The husband had sought a decree of nullity, alleging that his wife was schizophrenic. In response, the wife filed for maintenance, leading to a legal battle over the quantum of alimony. The wife, an MBA graduate and IT professional, brought her claim for a substantial settlement to the apex court.
Arguments of the Parties:
The wife, arguing her case, put forth a demand for a house in the Kalpataru complex in Mumbai, free of all costs and encumbrances, along with a one-time maintenance payment of ₹12 crores. To justify her claim, she contended that her husband was “very rich.” She also contested the husband’s allegations regarding her mental health, directly addressing the bench with the question, “Do I look Schizophrenic My Lords?” Furthermore, she expressed concern that an FIR lodged against her would be a barrier to securing employment. In a dramatic turn, she also alleged that her husband had influenced her own advocate.
Representing the husband, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan argued that the wife’s demands were excessive. She submitted to the court, “She has to work also. Everything cannot be demanded like this.” Ms. Divan provided details of the husband’s income from 2015-16, stating it was ₹2.5 crore with a bonus of ₹1 crore. She suggested that the wife was already in possession of a flat with two car parkings, which could be a source of income. Responding to a specific demand for a BMW car, Ms. Divan clarified that the vehicle in question was 10 years old and had long been scrapped.
Court’s Analysis and Observations:
The bench, led by CJI B.R. Gavai, critically examined the wife’s claims in light of her educational qualifications and the short duration of the marriage. The Chief Justice pointedly questioned her reluctance to seek employment.
“You’re an IT person. You’ve done your MBA. You’re in demand… Bengaluru, Hyderabad… Why don’t you work also?” CJI Gavai asked.
The Court expressed its surprise at the magnitude of the financial demand relative to the time the couple spent together. “You had a marriage for just 18 months,” the CJI remarked, adding, “and now you also want a BMW? 18 months marriage and you want one crore for each month!”
The bench also clarified the scope of her claims, stating, “But understand you cannot claim the properties of his father also.”
When the wife expressed apprehension about finding a job due to the pending FIR, the Chief Justice offered a solution, stating, “we will quash that also.”
The Court underlined the principle that an educated individual should strive for financial independence. The CJI observed, “When you are highly educated and decide not to work out of your own volition…” before presenting the wife with a final choice. In a concluding remark delivered in Hindi, CJI Gavai advised the petitioner, “Aap itni padi likhi hai. Aapko khudko mangna nahi chahiye aur khudko kama ke khana chahiye (You are so educated. You shouldn’t have to ask and should earn for yourself).”
The Supreme Court has reserved the case for orders. Before concluding the hearing, the bench presented the wife with a clear choice: “Either you get a flat free of all encumbrance or nothing,” or alternatively, “take the 4 crores and find a good job.” The court’s offer to quash the FIR against her was also made part of this proposed settlement.
