The Supreme Court on July 21 reserved its order in a matrimonial dispute involving a substantial alimony claim, after a woman sought ₹12 crore and a flat in Mumbai from her estranged husband.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria questioned the quantum of the demand, given the short duration of the marriage and the woman’s professional background.

The CJI asked the woman what exactly she was claiming.
Appearing in person, she said she wanted a flat in Mumbai free of cost and ₹12 crore as permanent, one-time maintenance.
The Bench was quick to probe further. CJI Gavai noted that the flat in question was in Kalpataru, a well-known housing project.
He asked the woman about her educational and professional qualifications and learned that she held an MBA and had worked in the IT sector.
“You are employable in places like Bengaluru and Hyderabad. Why not work?” he asked.

Referring to the brief duration of the marriage, the Chief Justice observed,

“It lasted just 18 months. And you are seeking a crore a month?”

In response, the woman said her husband came from considerable wealth and had sought annulment of the marriage on the ground that she was mentally ill.

“He called me schizophrenic,” she said, asking rhetorically whether she appeared unwell to the Court.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the husband, argued that the woman could not expect full financial support indefinitely.

“She is educated and capable of working,” Divan submitted, adding that the demands were excessive and not rooted in legal entitlement.

The Bench then sought details of the husband’s income tax records to enable it to determine a fair settlement.

Divan pointed out that the husband had declared an income of ₹2.5 crore and a bonus of ₹1 crore in the financial year 2015–16 during the period he was employed.
She further stated that the woman was currently residing in the disputed flat, which included two parking spots—both of which could also generate income.
“Everything in Mumbai has value,” the Bench agreed.
The Chief Justice also reminded the woman that she could not lay claim to properties held by her husband’s father.
Eventually, the Court offered the woman two options – either accept the flat without any legal encumbrance or take a lump sum settlement of ₹4 crore.
The CJI was categorical in stating that those who are educated and capable should not choose unemployment by choice and then claim exaggerated maintenance.

At one point, the woman alleged that her lawyer had been influenced by the other side. The Chief Justice firmly rebutted the claim, cautioning her to make responsible submissions and focus instead on a fair resolution.

When she expressed concern about pending FIRs against her affecting her employability, the Bench assured her that it was open to quashing those proceedings, if warranted.

“You are well educated. You should not be depending on handouts. You should earn and live with dignity,” the Chief Justice said before the Bench reserved the matter for order.