Summary of this article
Supreme Court’s stance in this case reiterates some evolving principles regarding alimony rules such as mutual settlements are binding unless proven otherwise through clear, material evidence.
When the Supreme Court of India closed the door on an eight-year-long matrimonial dispute earlier this week, it was not just the Rs 12 crore alimony or the luxury car demand that drew the attention of the public, it’s also a subtle reminder that a LinkedIn profile does not count as proof of income in the court of law.
The apex court, in a recent judgment, not only dissolved a marriage under its extraordinary powers, but also refused to entertain what it called “excessive and unjustified” claims from the wife which included a demand for Rs 12 crore in alimony, a BMW, and additional financial compensation.
What the Court Said
The Supreme Court did not question the woman's right to seek support. But it held her to the 2022 mutual settlement agreement she had already signed. Back then, she had accepted a flat in Kalpataru Habitat, along with two parking spots, as full and final settlement. There was no mention of a Rs 12 crore payout or a BMW.
“There was no claim for permanent alimony at the time of the agreement,” the court noted, rejecting the wife’s attempt to re-open the case with fresh financial demands. Her allegation of coercion during the signing of the agreement also didn’t hold water, as the court found no evidence of it.
Supreme Court Chief Justice BR Gavai addressed the petitioner directly and asked, “You are so educated. You should earn for yourself and shouldn’t ask for it.” He also questioned why, when the marriage lasted only 18 months, the wife is asking for a BMW car, too?
LinkedIn Profile is Not Proof of ‘Salary Slip’
A key part of the wife's argument hinged on her estranged husband's LinkedIn profile, which continued to list Citibank as his employer. She used this to claim he was still earning upwards of Rs 2.5 crore annually. But the Court dismissed that claim outright.
“We refuse to place any reliance on the ‘LinkedIn’ profile,” the Bench stated, accepting the husband’s assertion that he was no longer with Citibank and that his current income was closer to Rs 18 lakh a year.
The court also took cognisance of the husband's willingness to clear Rs 25.90 lakh in housing society dues to ensure the flat promised in settlement would be transferred without encumbrance.
Alimony Demands Must Align With Law, Reality
The court also based its decision on the wife’s own professional background. The court said the woman was a graduate engineer with a post-graduate management degree and had work experience in the IT sector; she was thus capable of supporting herself, the court observed.
The Supreme Court's judgment is in line with the broader direction in alimony rulings of late. In the Rakhi Sadhukhan case, the Supreme Court awarded not just a monthly alimony with inflation protection, but also ordered the transfer of the marital home. Courts are now increasingly viewing support through the lens of sustainability and fairness, especially in matters of marital disputes and alimony
The Court said that alimony must reflect lifestyle and future needs, not just subsistence. It also clarified that high financial demands must be backed by real evidence, not just assumptions or digital breadcrumbs. Also, both criminal cases filed by the wife under IPC Sections 498A and 406 were quashed. And both parties were barred from initiating further litigation against each other on the matter.
The judgment will formally come into effect once the flat is transferred and housing dues cleared by the end of August 2025.
A Cautionary Marker for Future Alimony Cases
In a country where divorce and alimony disputes are becoming increasingly complex, the Supreme Court’s stance in this case reiterates some evolving principles, such as:
Mutual settlements are binding unless proven otherwise through clear, material evidence.
Professional profiles on social media are not financial documents.
High qualifications and employability may weigh against long-term alimony.
Demands post-settlement must pass the test of law and fairness, not just aspiration.
