The Supreme Court has held that a major daughter isn't entitled to maintainence expenses from father if she has denounced future relationship with him and isn't interested in maintaining ties any further.
The divison-bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh while passing a Decree for Divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage deprived the daughter of education and marriage expenses from her father.
Brief Facts of the Case
The respondent-wife had agreed to Divorce with Mutual Consent with the Court invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, without admitting the allegations made by the appellant while filing the divorce petition. She, however had added two caveats to it:
(a) the maintenance for the last 10 months fixed by the trial Court of Rs.8,000/- per month has not been paid.
(b) the sole child-daughter, has got admission to a college and the appellant must bear expenses for her education.
The Counsel for the appellant-husband had requested Counsel for the respondent to arrange a meeting between the two in the meantime in order to develop and encourage a rapport between the daughter who is 20 years of age and the appellant. She was also requested to join the Mediation Proceedings conducted at the Supreme Court Mediation Center.
The first mediation failed and it was again requested to the daughter to develop some kind of interaction with the appellant-father if she wants him to play a role in her education. The matter when went for a second round of Mediation, also resulted in failure and became acrimonious and unpleasant in terms of the telephonic conversations.
The Counsel, in view of the above, submitted that the case is of a failed marriage at least since 2004, if not since 2002 i.e., 18 years and chances of any reconciliation appears to be impossible.
He thus pleaded the Court that decree of divorce is liable to be granted on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
He referred to Sukhendu Das Vs. Rita Mukherjee, 2017 Latest Caselaw 731 SC, to advance the proposition that where the parties have been living apart from a long period of time and all endeavor to save the marriage has failed, the Courts can dissolve a marriage as irretrievably broken down.
Supreme Court's Observation
The Court took note of the fact that the respondent-wife was not disagreeable to the grant of a decree of divorce on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, without admitting the allegations made by the appellant against her in the divorce petition subject to the two caveats ofcourse.
It was thus unequivocally of the view that nothing really subsists in this marriage except mutual accrimony.
"It is not even possible for the parties to sit across the table or to even talk over telephone to come to a reasonable understanding. There remains no doubt about irretrievable breakdown of marriage in the facts of the present case. Thus, we are inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by granting a decree of divorce on the said ground."
While settling the terms and conditions of the Divorce, the Court stated that it appears from the daughter's approach that she does not want to maintain any relationship with the appellant-father and thus is not entiltled to get benefits.
"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"
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
