Page 188 of Lawfully Yours
“Ms. Bakshi,” he began, “you are a close friend of Ms. Talwar?”
“Yes.”
“And you’re also the person who advised her to take her personal story to the media, correct?”
Kamya hesitated, glancing at Noyonika, then back at Kushal. “I only gave her advice as a friend. She was upset about herbreakup and wanted closure. I… suggested she share her truth publicly. I never imagined it would turn into a scandal of this scale.”
Kushal took a step forward. “You’re under oath, Ms. Bakshi. Did you or did you not encourage Ms. Talwar to mention Mr. Mukherjee’s name specifically to revive her own visibility in the media, to kickstart her career?”
Kamya exhaled. “Yes. I did. I know it was wrong. But she is my friend. I thought it would get her noticed again. We didn’t know it would get out of hand.”
The courtroom buzzed. Kushal didn’t move, didn’t gloat.
Her face tightened, but she didn’t deny it.
“But I realise now I caused damage to innocent people. I’m sorry,” she added.
Judge Meera leaned forward. “You confirm that this so-called ‘abuse story’ was suggested by you and that you personally encouraged its publication?”
Kamya nodded. “Yes, Your Honour. It wasn’t meant to go this far.”
Maanya’s face darkened. “Your Honour! How do we know which version is true — the one in the media or the one in court? This is contradictory testimony! These statements cannot be taken as credible.”
Judge Meera raised a hand. “Enough, Ms. Kapoor. The court has heard both witnesses. Their own admissions indicate fabrication of abuse for media gain. Their motives are now on record.”
She turned to the witness stand. “Ms. Talwar, Ms. Bakshi, you’ve both wasted the court’s time and damaged reputations through falsehoods. Consider this your formal warning. Mr. Mukherjee has the right to initiate a separate defamation case against you both should he choose.”
The two women lowered their eyes. The tension in the courtroom thinned, replaced by murmurs.
Judge Meera noted the proceedings, continued crisply, “The testimonies of all witnesses have been recorded. This court finds the prior media allegations against Mr. Mukherjee to be unsupported by credible evidence. Let us proceed to the matter of alimony.”
“My client deserves compensation for lost years, her halted career even—” Maanya began.
Kushal interjected smoothly. “Your Honour, the petition for ?50 crore alimony is not compensation. It’s extortion disguised as sentiment. Before we proceed further on the question of alimony, I request the court to admit Exhibit D — the verified financial disclosures of Mrs. Sadhna, along with her last year’s income statements, brand endorsement contracts, and her bank records.”
He handed the neatly bound file to the clerk. The judge nodded for the documents to be marked.
“As the records reflect, Mrs. Sadhna Mukherjee’s claim of financial distress is... far from accurate. The documents show three active endorsement deals signed in the last fiscal year alone, each valued at over ?1 crore. There’s also a ?2.7 crore fixed deposit under her name and ownership of a luxury apartment in Bandra.”
He paused, turning slightly toward Maanya’s table before looking back at the judge.
“Your Honour, we are not denying her right to fair maintenance. But a demand of ?50 crore, justified on grounds of alleged hardship and abuse that never got proved, stands in direct contradiction to her own sworn records. These are not the finances of a woman facing ruin. They’re the finances of someone financially independent, thriving, and still actively earning.”
Maanya objected vigorously. “Your Honour, Mrs Sadhna’s lifestyle during marriage must be compensated. Her contributions, unpaid sacrifices, are immeasurable.”
Kushal answered calmly to the bench, “Your Honour, alimony must be proportionate and just. The petitioner is not destitute. The evidence shows continuing remuneration independent of the marriage. A demand of ?50 crore is disproportionate and punitive, not compensatory.”
He slid another document forward.
“I’d also like to submit a comparative ledger showing her recent film advances and investment returns. The numbers speak for themselves. My client, Mr. Anant Mukherjee, has fulfilled every legal and moral obligation of a husband. What is being sought here is not justice, but a windfall.”
A brief silence fell in the courtroom as the judge reviewed the papers. Her eyes narrowed. “I will consider the financial disclosures. Seeing the financial capacity, I find no basis for the quantum of alimony sought. The court deems a fair, proportionate settlement appropriate.”
Sadhna’s lips trembled, but Maanya placed a hand over hers.
Judge Meera continued, voice steady and resolute:
“Given the petitioner’s proven independent income and substantial personal assets, this court fixes the one-time alimony amount at ?3 crore, inclusive of all future claims and liabilities, along with a modest monthly maintenance of ?2 lakh for a period not exceeding one year…sufficient time for Sadhna to reorganise her finances. The demand for ?50 crore is therefore rejected as excessive and unjustified.”
