Supreme Court Holds A Major Daughter Not Entitled To Education Expenses From Father As She Does Not Want To Maintain Relationship With Him

While passing a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Supreme Court refused to allow the daughter born to the couple to claim education and marriage expenses from her father as she said that she does not want to maintain relationship with him.

The Court noted that the daughter, aged 20 years of age, was not intending to maintain ties with the father. If that be the case, she can't claim any amount from him for marriage and education, the Court noted in the order. At the same time, the Court clarified that it will ensure that that sufficient funds are available with the mother to support the daughter (if the mother so desires) while determining the amount to be paid by the father to the mother as permanent alimony. The Court fixed the permanent alimony of the respondent(wife) at Rs.10,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all claims.

"In so far as the daughter's expenses for education and marriage are concerned, it appears from her approach that she does not want to maintain any relationship with the appellant and is about 20 years of age. She is entitled to choose her own path but then cannot demand from the appellant the amount towards the education. We, thus, hold that the daughter is not entitled to any amount but while determining the amount to be paid as permanent alimony to the respondent(mother), we are still taking care to see that if the respondent so desires to support the daughter, funds are available",a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh held.

It may be noted that the observations are made by the Court while passing an order in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on the basis of the settlement terms of the parties. Hence, the observations might not have a binding force as a law laid down.

The matter was settled after it was referred to mediation before the the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. The Court had earlier put a condition to the husband that decree of divorce can be passed only if he agrees to bear the educational expense of his daughter. The Court also facilitated a meeting between the father and the daughter at the mediation centre.

However, the mediation was a failure and the mediator reported that the interactions between the parties had become "acrimonious and unpleasant". In that backdrop, the Court observed in the order passed in December 2021 that "the daughter, who is now aged about 20 years, would have to develop some interaction with the appellant-father if she wants him to play a role in her education".

Appearances

For Appellant(s): Sr. Adv. Nidhesh Gupta along with Advocates Nidhi Gupta, Vriti Gujral and AOR S. Janani.

For Respondent(s): Advocate Tarun Shokeen, Advocate Sujeet Beniwal, Advocate Abhishek Atrey, AOR. [SC's Order records that none appeared for the respondent in the pre-lunch session or in the post-lunch session]

Order