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 dissolving the marriage and awarding the estranged wife a flat in Mumbai as alimony plea. However, the Court rejected her additional demands for ₹12 crore, a BMW car, and further compensation.
The bench held that these claims were excessive and lacked justification, especially in light of a prior settlement mutually agreed upon by the parties.
The case drew significant public attention after the wife sought ₹12 crore and a Mumbai flat from her estranged husband.
During the hearing on July 21, the Supreme Court raised concerns over the wife’s demands, noting the brief duration of the marriage and her professional qualifications.
On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria exercised its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage, citing an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship.
The Court cited the following reasons for dismissing the wife’s renewed demands:
Alimony Not Requested at the Time of Settlement
In 2022, the wife entered into a comprehensive mutual settlement agreement, under which she accepted a flat in Mumbai along with two parking spaces. At that time, she made no claim for ₹12 crore or any additional maintenance.
“As far as permanent alimony is concerned, the respondent had no such claim when entering into a settlement,” the Court noted.
No Evidence to Support Claims of Coercion and Fraud
The wife later claimed she had signed the settlement under pressure; however, the Court found these allegations unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence.
“The allegation of misrepresentation and fraud are blandly raised without any substantiation,” the top court held.
Wife is Educated and Gainfully Employed
The Court acknowledged the wife’s educational background and employment history, concluding that she did not require lifelong 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.
Mumbai Flat Deemed Adequate Settlement
The husband had consented to transfer a premium flat in Kalpataru Habitat, Mumbai, along with two parking spaces, to his wife. The Court considered this a fair and reasonable arrangement that adequately addressed 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.
Husband Accepted Liability for ₹25.9 Lakh in Home-Related Payments
The Court safeguarded the wife from potential eviction by noting the husband’s commitment to clear all outstanding dues owed to the housing society where the flat is situated.
“The appellant who was present before us in-person has agreed to pay up the entire maintenance charges as on date.”
Husband’s Income Significantly Reduced
The Court acknowledged that the husband was no longer employed at Citi Bank and noted that his annual income had dropped significantly—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.
LinkedIn Profile Deemed Unreliable for Verifying Income
The wife cited his LinkedIn profile to claim he remained lucratively employed; however, the Court dismissed it as unreliable and insufficient evidence.
“We refuse to place any reliance on the ‘LinkedIn’ profile,” the Bench made it clear.
New Demands Deemed Unfairly Burdensome
The Court held that the previous settlement was reasonable and that any additional financial demands would be excessive and unwarranted, particularly given the husband’s responsibility to support a child with autism.
“The terms of the settlement agreed upon according to us, does justice to the estranged wife and does not unduly burden the husband.”
Through its judgment, the Court also dismissed the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and prohibited both parties from pursuing any further legal action related to the marriage.
The divorce will be finalized once the apartment is transferred and the outstanding dues are settled by August 30.