Supreme Court Stunned: Woman Demands Rs 5 Crore Alimony After Just One Year of Marriage

In a case that has captured national attention, the Supreme Court of India was recently confronted with an astounding demand: a woman sought a staggering Rs 5 crore as permanent alimony following a marriage that endured for a mere one year. The apex court, not mincing words, swiftly labeled the demand as "exorbitant" and "unreasonable," urging the petitioner to reconsider her expectations.

The matrimonial dispute, presided over by a bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, highlighted a significant disconnect between the brevity of the union and the magnitude of the financial claim.

The marriage, which reportedly lasted for a mere 10 to 12 months, was formally annulled by the Bombay High Court in 2023. The High Court, in its judgment, had awarded the woman Rs 25 lakh in alimony, a figure she subsequently challenged, escalating her demand five-fold in her appeal to the Supreme Court.

Representing the woman, her counsel passionately argued that the marriage had come at a substantial personal cost.

The petitioner claimed to have sacrificed significant career prospects, specifically a prestigious scholarship for a Ph.D. in the UK, due to the matrimonial alliance. Furthermore, her lawyer contended that she had endured immense mental agony as a result of the short-lived marriage. Central to her demand was the assertion that her estranged husband, a medical doctor, commanded a robust monthly income of Rs 2-3 lakh, thereby justifying the substantial alimony figure.

However, the husband's legal team presented a starkly different financial picture.

His lawyer countered the petitioner's claims, stating unequivocally that his client's actual monthly income was a modest Rs 70,000, a figure significantly lower than what was alleged. This disparity in reported incomes adds another layer of complexity to an already contentious case.

The Supreme Court made its position abundantly clear.

Expressing strong reservations about the "exorbitant" nature of the Rs 5 crore demand, especially for a marriage of such short duration, the bench firmly advised the woman to propose a "reasonable" amount. The justices indicated that they were not inclined to entertain such a high claim under the circumstances.

This judicial push for practicality underscores the court's role in ensuring equitable and justifiable outcomes in matrimonial disputes.

As the legal battle continues, the Supreme Court has scheduled the case for further hearing, allowing both parties to present their revised arguments. This case serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities involved in alimony settlements and the judiciary's efforts to balance individual claims with principles of fairness and reasonableness, particularly when the duration of a marriage is exceptionally brief.