LinkedIn profile not reliable income proof: Supreme Court rejects wife’s alimony demand of ₹12 crore, BMW

The Supreme Court on Monday brought to an end an eight-year matrimonial dispute by dissolving the marriage of a man and his estranged wife by granting the latter a flat in Mumbai as alimony but turning down her demands for ₹12 crore, a BMW car and additional compensation.

The Court found the claims disproportionate and unsupported, given an earlier settlement already agreed to by both parties.

The case had attracted substantial attention after the wife had raised a demand of ₹12 crore and a flat in Mumbai from the estranged husband.

When the matter was heard on July 21, the top court had taken exception to the wife's demand, given the short duration of the marriage and the woman’s professional background.

On Tuesday, the bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to end the marriage, holding that the relationship had irretrievably broken down.

The Court gave the following reasons for rejecting the wife’s fresh demands:

1. No alimony was claimed when the agreement was signed

The wife had signed a detailed mutual settlement agreement in 2022, under which she accepted a Mumbai flat and two parking spots. No claim of ₹12 crore or additional maintenance was made at that time.

“As far as permanent alimony is concerned, the respondent had no such claim when entering into a settlement," the Court noted.

2. Allegations of coercion and fraud lacked evidence

The wife later alleged that she signed the settlement under duress, but the Court said these were unproven and unaccompanied by any material.

“The allegation of misrepresentation and fraud are blandly raised without any substantiation," the top court held.

3. She is qualified and was employed

The Court took note of the wife's educational qualifications and work history, holding that she was not in need of lifelong financial support.

“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.

4. The Mumbai apartment was sufficient settlement

The husband had agreed to gift her a prime flat in Kalpataru Habitat in Mumbai, with two car parks. The Court called this a reasonable arrangement that met her post-divorce needs.

“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.

5. Husband agreed to clear ₹25.9 lakh in housing dues

The Court ensured the wife would not face eviction by recording the husband’s undertaking to pay all arrears owed to the housing society where the flat is located.

“The appellant who was present before us in-person has agreed to pay up the entire maintenance charges as on date.”

6. Husband's income had dropped sharply

From earning over ₹2.5 crore annually while at Citi Bank, his income had fallen to under ₹18 lakh in recent years. The Court accepted he was no longer employed at the bank.

“We find absolutely no reason to disbelieve the appellant’s contention that he is no more in employment with Citi Bank,” the Court said.

7. LinkedIn profile was not reliable proof of income

The wife had relied on his LinkedIn profile to argue he was still lucratively employed but the Court refused to accept that as credible evidence.

“We refuse to place any reliance on the ‘LinkedIn’ profile,” the Bench made it clear.

8. Fresh demands would place unfair burden

The Court concluded that the earlier settlement was fair and that any further financial claims would be excessive and unjustified, especially since the husband also has an autistic child to support.

“The terms of the settlement agreed upon according to us, does justice to the estranged wife and does not unduly burden the husband.”

With the judgment, the Court also quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and barred both parties from initiating any further legal action related to the marriage.

The divorce will take effect once the apartment is gifted and dues are cleared by August 30.

[Read Judgment]