Lakshminarayana Chekuri v. Madhuri Nekkalapudi, 593 S.W.3d 467

Parties entered an arranged marriage in India on Feb. 12, 2015, separated Dec. 27, 2015, and Chekuri filed for divorce Apr. 21, 2016; a restraining order prohibited disposing of marital property except in ordinary course.
Nekkalapudi is a medically trained immigrant who had not completed U.S. licensing; she moved to Virginia to prepare for licensing exams and claimed financial dependence on Chekuri and need for rehabilitative support.
Chekuri became employed as a psychiatrist in 2016 with a substantial salary increase; during the separation he made large cash withdrawals and transfers, which Nekkalapudi alleged converted marital funds (~$135,000 claimed).
At trial the circuit court awarded an absolute divorce, split marital property equally, awarded Nekkalapudi one-half of the marital funds Chekuri spent during separation ($68,415.50), one-half of retirement accrued during the marriage, all gifts/jewelry to her, and $1,000/month rehabilitative alimony for 18 months.
Chekuri appealed; the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review, treated the appeal as original to the Court, affirmed the circuit court, and vacated the court of appeals opinion.

Issue	Chekuri's Argument	Nekkalapudi's Argument	Held
Whether wife was entitled to one-half of marital funds husband spent during separation	Wife must prove husband spent funds with specific intent to defraud her; no such proof and court made no fraud finding	Withdrawals sharply increased after separation, husband produced little documentation for expenditures, inference of conversion supports award	Affirmed. Court upheld award of one-half of those funds; evidence supported inference of improper disposition and credibility findings favor wife
Whether marital assets should be divided equally	Unequal division warranted: short marriage, separate finances, most disputed assets acquired after separation, wife did not advance husband’s career	Court should split marital assets equally given disparity in incomes, limited employability of wife, debts and equities on both sides	Affirmed. Equal division permissible; circuit court considered statutory factors and its factual findings were not clearly erroneous
Whether rehabilitative alimony was appropriate and in what amount/duration	No alimony warranted given short marriage, temporary support already paid, wife’s failure to pursue licensing, and assets awarded to wife	Wife has financial need and limited present earning capacity; husband has substantial ability to pay; rehabilitative support needed to pursue licensing	Affirmed. $1,000/month for 18 months within court’s discretion; temporary-support challenge not preserved on appeal

Skokos v. Skokos, 332 Ark. 520, 968 S.W.2d 26 (Ark. 1998) (spouse may recover marital interest in property transferred by other spouse only if transfer made to defraud that interest; relevant on reimbursement claims)
Ramsey v. Ramsey, 259 Ark. 16, 531 S.W.2d 28 (Ark. 1976) (court may consider wrongful disposition of marital property when dividing assets)
Taylor v. Taylor, 369 Ark. 31, 250 S.W.3d 232 (Ark. 2007) (marital property includes property acquired after separation until divorce decree)
Foster v. Foster, 2016 Ark. 456, 506 S.W.3d 808 (Ark. 2016) (primary factors for alimony are need and ability to pay; award reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Moore v. Moore, 2019 Ark. 216, 576 S.W.3d 15 (Ark. 2019) (standard of review in divorce/property division appeals)