'Why Don't You Earn?': SC Slams Woman Demanding Rs 12 Crore, Flat, BMW in Alimony

The Supreme Court recently addressed a case involving a woman's alimony demands after an 18-month marriage. She sought Rs 12 crore and a BMW from her husband, prompting Chief Justice of India BR Gavai to question the scale of her request. He remarked on her education, suggesting she should earn independently rather than relying on alimony.

During the hearing, CJI Gavai stated, "Your marriage lasted only 18 months, and now you want a BMW too? One crore every month?" The woman, who holds an MBA and has IT expertise, was advised by the Chief Justice to leverage her qualifications for self-sustenance.

Alimony Demands Under Scrutiny

The woman's lawyer argued that her husband is wealthy and had even sought annulment by alleging she suffers from schizophrenia. She questioned this claim in court. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the husband, contended that such extravagant alimony claims are unreasonable.

Divan highlighted that the woman already resides in a Mumbai flat with two parking spaces and could generate income from it. She added, "She has to work also. Everything cannot be demanded like this." Furthermore, Divan noted that the BMW in question is outdated and discontinued.

Financial Disclosures Required

CJI Gavai pointed out the husband's previous earnings—Rs 2.5 crore salary and Rs 1 crore bonuses—and instructed both parties to provide complete financial documents. The bench emphasized that the woman couldn't claim rights over her husband's father's property.

The woman alleged her job loss was due to her husband's actions and mentioned a false FIR filed against her. In response, CJI Gavai assured her that any FIR filed would be canceled and no criminal proceedings would be initiated by either party.

Settlement Options Offered

As proceedings wrapped up, the court presented two options: accept a burden-free flat or Rs 4 crore while seeking employment in IT hubs like Pune or Bengaluru. "There is demand in IT centers," said CJI Gavai. The court reserved its order on this matter.

The husband approached the Supreme Court after Bombay High Court denied him relief based on his wife's right to withdraw from their Settlement Agreement. He argued she reneged on their mutual consent divorce for better financial terms.

According to him, she agreed to take a flat at Kalpataru Habitat as full settlement of all claims but later withdrew consent for further divorce proceedings. This act, he claimed, abused legal processes by seeking more lucrative settlements while continuing criminal cases.