In a recent high-profile alimony case, the Supreme Court of India addressed a dispute where a woman demanded a luxury apartment in Mumbai, ₹12 crore as maintenance, and a BMW car following an 18-month marriage. The Court, employing its Article 142 powers, dissolved the marriage by directing the husband to gift his wife a ₹4 crore Mumbai flat. However, the court rejected the wife's demand for an additional ₹12 crore and a BMW, deeming the flat sufficient alimony given her education and potential for self-support.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai strongly questioned the woman's demands, emphasizing that qualified women should support themselves financially rather than rely on their husbands' money for maintenance. The CJI noted the woman's qualifications as an IT professional with an MBA degree, suggesting she leverage her skills in high-demand tech hubs like Bengaluru and Hyderabad. He remarked, "You're an IT person. You've done your MBA. You're in demand... Why don't you work also?". The court also questioned the rationale behind her demands, stating, "You were married for just 18 months. And you also want a BMW?".
The Supreme Court offered the woman two options: accept the Mumbai flat free of all encumbrances or receive ₹4 crore. This decision aligns with a series of recent judgments where Indian courts have clarified that maintenance laws are intended for support, not entitlement. The Delhi High Court, in a similar case in March 2025, ruled that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) aims to protect, not reward, individuals who avoid work despite being qualified. The High Court stated, "A well-educated wife with ability and past work experience should not remain idle solely to claim maintenance".
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the husband, argued that the woman must share the responsibility for her livelihood, stating, "She has to work, too. Everything cannot be demanded like this". Divan also pointed out that the BMW the woman was seeking was a 10-year-old, discontinued model. The woman, in response, claimed her husband is "very rich" and had filed for annulment of the marriage on the grounds that she is schizophrenic. She also alleged that her husband's actions led to her job loss and that he had filed a false FIR against her.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores a shifting narrative towards fairness in alimony cases. Courts are increasingly discouraging the notion of alimony as a means for luxury, especially in short-lived marriages, and are emphasizing the importance of financial independence for qualified individuals. The ruling serves as a reminder that education and skills are empowerment tools, and the law encourages individuals, particularly women, to utilize them to live with dignity. The case also highlights the judiciary's concern over the potential misuse of maintenance laws for extortion, rather than genuine need.
