Today, On 22nd July, CJI Gavai slams woman’s Rs.12 crore alimony demand after 18-month marriage, questions her need for a BMW despite being highly educated. Says, “You even want a BMW? You’re so educated, learn to earn!”
A serious legal fight over alimony was heard in the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice B.R. Gavai raised tough questions to a woman who was demanding a flat in Mumbai and Rs.12 crore from her husband after only 18 months of marriage.
The woman, who has an MBA and IT background, was also questioned about her decision not to work.
The Chief Justice asked,
“You even want a BMW? That’s like Rs.1 crore per month!”
He further made it clear that she could not ask for her husband’s father’s properties and told the lawyers to submit the income tax returns.
The matter was listed to resume at 2 PM.
Also Read: BREAKING | CJI Gavai: “We (Supreme Court Judges) Don’t Watch News Or YouTube Interviews”
When the hearing began in the afternoon, CJI Gavai asked,
“Where are the returns?”
The woman replied,
“They are here.”
The CJI then asked,
“What was his income in 2015–16?”
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the husband, informed the court,
“It was about Rs.2.5 crore, with an additional Rs.1 crore as bonus. There are also claims regarding proxy businesses, and those balance sheets are already on record. There’s nothing further to add provided he simply stays in his job.”
She added more details about the woman’s current living conditions.
“In addition to the flat she is living in, there are two parking spaces as well, which could also generate income for her and the BMW she mentions is a 10-year-old vehicle already scrapped long ago.”
The Chief Justice made it clear to the woman that she cannot expect everything if she does not wish to work.
He said,
“You can either receive a flat free from all liabilities, or nothing at all. If you are well educated and choose not to work by your own choice that cannot be a basis for further claims.”
He continued,
“Madam now you better be satisfied with the flat and take the money and find a job in Pune.”
The woman responded emotionally, saying,
“My lords they harassed me so much I live in Pune they filed the case in Mumbai.”
The Chief Justice responded to her by saying,
“Aap itni padhi likhi hai aapko maangna nahi chahiye khud kamana seekhna chahiye.” (You are so well educated, you should not be asking for money; you should learn to earn on your own.)
After hearing all sides, the Supreme Court reserved its order in the matter.
The case presented to the Supreme Court stemmed from a matrimonial dispute involving a couple whose marriage lasted around 18 months. The husband sought a decree of nullity, claiming that his wife suffered from schizophrenia. In turn, the wife filed for maintenance, igniting a legal confrontation over the amount of alimony.
An MBA graduate and IT professional, she approached the apex court with a demand for a significant settlement.
The wife requested a house in the Kalpataru complex in Mumbai, insisting it should be free of any costs or encumbrances, along with a one-time maintenance payment of Rs.12 crores.
Also Read: Matrimonial Dispute| “Misunderstanding on the Concept of Mediation”: Supreme Court
To support her claim, she argued that her husband was “very rich.” She also challenged the husband’s assertions about her mental health, directly addressing the bench with the question,
“Do I look Schizophrenic My Lords?”
Additionally, she expressed fears that an FIR filed against her would hinder her job prospects. In a surprising turn of events, she accused her husband of influencing her own lawyer.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the husband, told the Supreme Court that the wife’s demands were unreasonable.
She told the bench,
“She has to work also. Everything cannot be demanded like this.”
Ms. Divan informed the court that the husband’s income for the financial year 2015-16 was Rs.22.5 crore, along with a Rs.1 crore bonus. She also pointed out that the wife already owned a flat with two parking spots, which could potentially generate rental income. On the demand for a BMW, Ms. Divan clarified that the car in question was over 10 years old and had already been scrapped.
The bench, presided over by B.R. Gavai, scrutinized the wife’s claims considering her educational background and the brief duration of the marriage. The Chief Justice notably questioned her hesitation to seek employment.