On Tuesday, the Supreme Court clarified that a one-time settlement paid at the time of divorce does not absolve a parent of financial responsibility towards their children. The Court stated that maintenance for children remains a separate obligation, unaffected by any lump sum amount paid to the spouse as part of a divorce settlement.
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute wherein a man and woman, both professionals, sought divorce. The High Court granted the decree of divorce on November 18, 2023, citing irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The man paid a sum of ₹3 crore to the woman on February 17, 2024, purportedly towards a one-time settlement. He subsequently remarried on March 17, 2024.
The woman later approached the Supreme Court, contesting the High Court's decision on the ground that such relief could only be granted by the apex court under Article 142 of the Constitution. She also raised concerns regarding the financial needs of the two children born during the marriage, one of whom requires lifelong treatment for diabetes.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Rituparn Uniyal submitted that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage solely on the basis of irretrievable breakdown. The petitioner also argued that the children's welfare, particularly concerning their medical and maintenance needs, had not been addressed.
On behalf of the respondent, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde contended that the petitioner had accepted the ₹3 crore settlement and had earlier stated she did not require further support. He added that the respondent was prepared to continue bearing the expenses of the daughters, acknowledging his responsibilities as their father.
The Bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh made a critical distinction between spousal and child maintenance, stating: "There is no OTS when children are concerned." The Court took note of the timing of the petition, the fact of remarriage, and the absence of prior claims during High Court proceedings.
Acknowledging the developments subsequent to the High Court’s decree, including the respondent’s remarriage, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the divorce itself. However, the Court emphasized the necessity of resolving outstanding matters related to children’s maintenance and visitation rights through a consensual mechanism. It appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as mediator to facilitate resolution of these pending issues.
Picture Source :
