Vijayalakshmi R. vs C. L. Balaji
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 731
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.19770 OF 2025)
VIJAYALAKSHMI R. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
C. L. BALAJI … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant Appeal assails the judgment and
order dated 07.03.2025 (“Impugned Judgment”)
passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru (“High Court”), whereby the High
Court dismissed the Miscellaneous First Appeal
No. 1221 of 2024 (FC) preferred by the
Appellant-wife under Section 19(1) of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 and affirmed the order dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SOURAV PAL
Date: 2026.07.21
17:26:37 IST
Reason:
03.01.2024 passed by the III Additional
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 1 of 30
Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru
(“Family Court”) in Execution Petition No. 30 of
2022, vide which the Execution Petition filed by
the Appellant-wife was dismissed.
3. Brief facts are that the marriage of the
Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband
was solemnised on 07.05.2000 at Bengaluru as
per the Hindu rites. A son, namely, Aarav C.
Balaji, was born out of their wedlock on
20.03.2006. On account of differences having
arisen between the parties, they started residing
separately from 13.09.2011. The parties,
thereafter, jointly filed a petition being M.C. No.
3644 of 2013 under Section 13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court
seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual
consent. A Settlement Petition dated
29.08.2015 came to be filed setting out the
terms mutually agreed upon between the
parties, and the Family Court, vide judgment
and decree dated 29.08.2015, dissolved the
marriage in terms thereof.
4. The controversy in the instant Appeal revolves
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 2 of 30
around the true construction of Clauses 8, 9
and 10 of the said Settlement Petition, wherein
the Respondent-husband has been described as
“first Petitioner” and the Appellant-wife as
“second Petitioner”. It would be apposite to
reproduce the said clauses, which read as
under:
“8. The first Petitioner has agreed to give Rs.
2,20,00,000/- (Rupees Two crore twenty lakhs
only) to the second Petitioner towards
maintenance to his minor son which shall be
paid by disposing first Petitioner's immovable
properties which are stated as detailed here
under:
a. The first Petitioner agreed to pay Rs.
50,00,000/- towards part of Rs.
2,20,00,000/- on or before 31.12.2015.
b. The second installment of Rs.
50,00,000/- on or before 30.06.2016.
c. The third installment amount of Rs.
50,00,000/- on or before 31.12.2016 and
remaining balance of Rs. 70,00,000/-
agreed to pay on or before 30.06.2017.
9. That, the first Petitioner has agreed to pay
20% of his annual income inclusive of monthly
salary, bonus, stock options and other forms of
income received from the Employer after
deduction of statutory dues as maintenance
amount to his minor son. This will be paid by
him to the second petitioner for spending the
same by her towards education, maintenance
and other expenses of the minor son.
10. The first Petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 2
Crore towards maintenance of the minor son as
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 3 of 30
stated in clause No. 8 out of which first
Petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 1 Crore on or
before 30.06.2016. After the payment of Rs.
1 Crore, the first Petitioner need not pay
any further amount towards maintenance
and also agreed to settle the balance of Rs.
1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One crore twenty lakhs
only) on or before 30.06.2017.” (emphasis
supplied)
5. It is not in dispute that the entire sum agreed
under Clause 8 stands paid by the Respondent-
husband, the last installment having been paid
on 28.07.2017. The High Court has noticed, as
an undisputed position, payment of a total sum
of Rs. 2,53,93,700/- by the Respondent-
husband towards maintenance of the son.
6. The Appellant-wife, on 09.03.2022, instituted
Execution Petition No. 30 of 2022 before the
Family Court under Section 36 read with Order
XXI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
read with Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 seeking enforcement of Clause 9 of
the Settlement Petition, praying therein, inter
alia, for a direction to the Respondent-husband
to pay twenty per cent of his annual income
along with interest, and for coercive steps in aid
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 4 of 30
of recovery thereof.
7. The Family Court, vide order dated 03.01.2024,
dismissed the Execution Petition, inter alia,
holding that a combined reading of Clauses 8, 9
and 10 of the Settlement Petition makes it clear
that upon payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, the
Respondent-husband was not required to pay
any further amount towards maintenance, and
accordingly, Clause 9 became ineffective and
inoperative upon such payment. The Appellant-
wife had admitted receipt of the entire sum of
Rs. 2,20,00,000/-, the last payment having
been made on 28.07.2017 and the conduct of
the Appellant-wife, in not insisting upon
payment of twenty per cent of the annual
income of the Respondent-husband from 2017
to 2022, leads to the inference that she was
herself aware that Clause 9 had become
ineffective upon payment of the entire
settlement amount.
8. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed
by the Family Court, the Appellant-wife
preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous First
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 5 of 30
Appeal No. 1221 of 2024 (FC) under Section
19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 before the
High Court. The High Court, vide the Impugned
Judgment, dismissed the said appeal.
9. The High Court held that a plain reading of
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the Settlement Petition
makes the agreement between the parties clear:
until the Respondent-husband paid the sum of
Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, he was required to pay
twenty per cent of his annual income as
maintenance; after payment of the said sum,
the requirement of paying twenty per cent of the
annual income towards maintenance does not
arise, and the balance of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- was
thereafter payable on or before 30.06.2017. The
finding of the Family Court that Clause 9
becomes ineffective upon payment as per
Clause 10 is “just and proper and in consonance
with the clear terms of the compromise
petition”, which is also fortified by the conduct
of the parties.
10. The High Court further observed that nothing
was placed on record to show that, soon after
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 6 of 30
payment of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- and till the filing
of the Execution Petition, the Appellant-wife had
demanded payment of twenty per cent of the
annual income of the Respondent-husband,
which would have been the conduct of a prudent
man in the natural course of events.
11. Hence, the Appellant-wife is before this Court by
way of the present Appeal. During the pendency
of the proceedings, this Court, vide order dated
22.01.2026, directed the parties to place on
record their latest income-tax returns,
particulars of their cost to company and details
of their immovable properties. On 30.01.2026,
this Court interacted with the son of the parties
in chambers, wherein he expressed his desire to
pursue higher education abroad in the field of
Electrical Engineering and Chip Design
Research.
12. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.04.2026, with
the consent of the parties and as an interim
measure, the Respondent-husband was
directed to transfer a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
on or before 04.05.2026 towards securing
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 7 of 30
admission of the son in a foreign university for
the Academic Session 2026-2027, the said
amount to be retained until further orders of
this Court. The said direction stands complied
with, the amount having been transferred in two
tranches of Rs. 50,00,000/- each on 30.04.2026
and 01.05.2026 to the account of the son.
13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
Appellant-wife submits that Clause 9 of the
Settlement Petition is an independent,
continuing and enforceable obligation, distinct
from Clause 8, requiring the Respondent-
husband to pay twenty per cent of his annual
income towards education, maintenance and
welfare of the son till he attains the age of
twenty-three years or completes his post-
graduation, whichever is earlier. If Clause 9
were to be treated as having been extinguished
upon payment under Clause 8, its express
terms would be rendered redundant, which
would be contrary to the settled principle that
no part of an instrument ought to be reduced to
surplusage.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 8 of 30
14. The learned senior counsel further submits that
Clause 10 cannot be read so as to extinguish
Clause 9. Clause 10 was concerned only with
cessation of a pre-existing monthly
arrangement upon payment of the first tranche
under Clause 8, and the periodical payments
relied upon by the Respondent-husband as
compliance with Clause 9 were, in fact, referable
to the said monthly arrangement and not to the
income-linked obligation under Clause 9. On
this basis, it is urged that the Respondent-
husband has failed to demonstrate compliance
with Clause 9, and that the Execution Petition,
having been filed within the period of twelve
years prescribed under Article 136 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, could not have been
thrown out on the ground of delay, the
obligation being a continuing one.
15. The learned senior counsel has relied upon the
1
decisions in Kirti Malhotra v. M.K. Malhotra
and Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat v. Ajayveer
1
1995 Supp (3) SCC 522
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 9 of 30
2
Chapotkat to contend that the obligation of a
father to maintain his son, particularly one who
is pursuing his studies and is dependent,
subsists even after the son attains majority. It is
also contended that where the clauses of an
instrument are in conflict, the earlier clause
must prevail over the later, and reliance in this
regard has been placed upon the decisions in
Ramkishorelal and Another v. Kamal
3
Narayan and Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd.
4
Jahadur Rahim and Others .
16. Lastly, drawing attention to the disparity in the
financial position of the parties and the
educational requirements of the son, the
learned senior counsel prays that the Impugned
Judgment and the order of the Family Court be
set aside; that Clause 9 be declared an
independent and continuing obligation and the
matter be remanded for computation and
enforcement; and, in the alternative, that this
Court, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of
2
2014 SCC Online Bom 465
3
1962 SCC Online SC 113
4
1958 SCC Online SC 38
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 10 of 30
the Constitution of India, create a one-time
corpus of approximately Rupees Six Crore to
Rupees Six Crore Fifty Lakh towards higher
education of the son.
17. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for
the Respondent-husband vehemently opposing
the Appeal submits that there exists no conflict
amongst Clauses 8, 9 and 10 and that the three
clauses constitute a single composite
arrangement. Clause 8 fixes the total lump sum
of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- as full and final settlement.
Clause 9 provides only an interim and
transitional maintenance of twenty per cent of
the annual income pending payment of the first
Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and Clause 10 marks the
point of termination whereupon all further
maintenance obligations cease and only the
balance of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- remains payable.
The commercial logic of the arrangement also
supports such construction inasmuch as
Clause 9 secured interim support for the son
while the Respondent-husband liquidated his
immovable properties to arrange funds for the
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 11 of 30
lump sum contemplated under Clause 8. The
construction urged on behalf of the Appellant-
wife, of a standalone and perpetual income-
linked obligation, would render the express
discharge language of Clause 10 entirely futile
and negate the very concept of a full and final
settlement.
18. It is further submitted that the structure of the
settlement itself repels the construction
canvassed by the Appellant-wife. The original
joint application dated 31.08.2013
contemplated an exclusively periodic
arrangement, namely, payment of twenty per
cent of the annual income towards maintenance
and education of the son till he attained the age
of twenty-three years or completed his post-
graduation, with no lump-sum component
whatsoever. The Settlement Petition dated
29.08.2015, on the other hand, introduced a
structurally different mechanism, that is, a
defined lump sum of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- payable
in time-bound installments coupled with the
express discharge under Clause 10, being a
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 12 of 30
deliberate restructuring designed to achieve
finality. It has also been pointed out that the
Settlement Petition was drafted by the father of
the Appellant-wife, a practising advocate who
represented the parties in the matrimonial
proceedings, and therefore, the Appellant-wife
cannot now be permitted to ascribe to its terms
a meaning different from what the parties
understood and acted upon.
19. On the aspect of compliance, it is submitted that
the entire sum of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- stands paid
between 24.02.2016 and 28.07.2017. Twenty
per cent of the annual income was, in fact, paid
between 25.09.2015 and 16.08.2016, that is, till
completion of payment of the first Rs.
1,00,00,000/-, and the same was accepted by
the Appellant-wife without any protest. An
additional sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- was paid to
compensate for the delay of two months in
completing the first installment. In the
aggregate, the Respondent-husband has paid a
sum of Rs. 2,55,13,700/- since separation of
the parties, which is stated to be in excess of his
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 13 of 30
liability under the Settlement Petition. Further,
as part of the settlement, the Respondent-
husband conveyed to the Appellant-wife the
residential property at J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru,
free of encumbrance, vide registered Release
Deed dated 01.06.2016, which property is
valued by the Appellant-wife herself at Rs.
6,00,00,000/-.
20. Adverting to the conduct of the parties, it is
submitted that the Execution Petition came to
be filed on 09.03.2022, that is, approximately
six and a half years after the decree and nearly
five years after the last payment, and during the
said interregnum, no demand whatsoever was
raised by the Appellant-wife towards payment of
twenty per cent of the annual income. Such
silence, according to the learned senior counsel,
stands in irreconcilable contrast with her own
established conduct, including her electronic
mail dated 19.08.2015 promptly demanding
settlement of a pending sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-
and her application in the matrimonial
proceedings seeking impounding of the passport
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 14 of 30
of the Respondent-husband, which
demonstrates that she was prompt and
meticulous in pursuing amounts genuinely due
to her. She sought closure of the joint bank
account on 16.01.2017 without any reservation.
She executed a registered Release Deed dated
30.08.2021 in favour of the Respondent-
husband in respect of the Mantri Synergy
apartment at Chennai, followed by a No-
Objection Letter dated 31.08.2021, without any
protest or reservation, and vide her affidavit
dated 04.07.2023 filed before the Family Court,
acknowledged receipt of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- as
per Clause 8 of the settlement. On this material,
the principles of laches, acquiescence, waiver
and estoppel have been pressed into service. It
is urged that the belated claim is nothing but an
afterthought, having been filed after the
Appellant-wife learnt of the remarriage of the
Respondent-husband and the birth of his
daughter, and that the concurrent findings,
being neither perverse nor manifestly unjust,
warrant no interference under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 15 of 30
21. On equities, it is submitted that the settlement
was a negotiated one between two financially
independent and legally advised parties, both
being high-earning at the time of the divorce,
and must, therefore, be treated as a full and
final resolution of the claims inter se. The
comparative financial position of the parties,
their incomes, deductions and immovable
assets, stands set out in Schedules B and C to
the written submissions. The Respondent-
husband, presently aged 55 years, is the sole
earning member of his present household,
bearing the responsibility of his wife and two
young children, one of whom suffers from
epilepsy, apart from servicing a substantial
mortgage on his dwelling house.
22. Lastly, it is submitted that the Respondent-
husband, acting out of paternal concern for the
welfare of his son and not under any legal
obligation or liability, relinquishes any right to
seek return or reimbursement of the sum of Rs.
1,00,00,000/- transferred in compliance with
the order dated 28.04.2026 and does not claim
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 16 of 30
the same back, without prejudice to his rights
and contentions and to his stand that no
additional payment is liable to be made under
the Settlement Petition.
23. We have heard the learned senior counsel for
the respective parties at length and with their
assistance have gone through the relevant
pleadings, the material on record and the
written submissions filed on behalf of both the
sides. The issue that arises for consideration
can be carved out as follows: ‘Whether Clause 9
of the Settlement Petition dated 29.08.2015
constitutes an independent and continuing
obligation surviving the payments made under
Clauses 8 and 10 thereof, or stood satisfied and
ceased to operate upon such payments; and
consequently, whether the concurrent findings of
the Family Court and the High Court warrant
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India?’
24. Before adverting to the above issue, it is
required to be noted that the proceedings from
which the instant Appeal arises are execution
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 17 of 30
proceedings. The Execution Petition was
instituted for enforcement of a decree passed in
terms of a settlement. It is well settled that the
executing court cannot go behind the decree; it
is to execute the decree as it stands and cannot
embark upon a fresh adjudication of the rights
of the parties. The enquiry, therefore, remains a
limited one, namely, whether on a true
construction of the settlement, the obligation
stated to have been left unsatisfied subsists and
remains enforceable, and not whether a larger
or a different provision ought now to be made.
25. Reverting to the construction of the clauses, the
language of Clause 10 is plain and admits of no
ambiguity. Upon payment of the sum of Rs.
1,00,00,000/- out of the amount agreed under
Clause 8, the Respondent-husband “need not
pay any further amount towards maintenance”.
The expression is comprehensive and
unqualified. It is neither confined to
maintenance of any particular description nor
does it carve out the income-linked
maintenance provided under Clause 9. The
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 18 of 30
maintenance contemplated under Clause 9 is,
on the very text of the said clause, maintenance
paid for the son and would, therefore, squarely
fall within the discharge worked by Clause 10.
Admittedly, the sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
stands paid. The plain consequence which
follows is that upon such payment, the
obligation to pay twenty per cent of the annual
income ceased to operate, and what remained
was the balance lump-sum payment under
Clause 8, which too stands paid.
26. A combined reading of Clauses 8, 9 and 10
discloses a single interlocking arrangement and
not three independent obligations. Clause 8
fixes the total quantum of maintenance. Clause
9 provides an interim income-linked mechanism
to secure maintenance of the son during the
period over which the lump sum under Clause
8 was being paid in installments. Clause 10
identifies the point of discharge, namely, once
Rs. 1,00,00,000/- stood paid, the interim
mechanism came to an end and only the
balance under Clause 8 remained payable. So
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 19 of 30
construed, every clause is given full effect. The
contention that such a reading reduces Clause
9 to surplusage is misconceived. Rather, it is the
construction canvassed on behalf of the
Appellant-wife, that is, of Clause 9 being a
permanent obligation wholly independent of the
lump sum, which would denude Clause 10 of all
its content, for its words of discharge would
then have nothing to operate upon. It is a settled
canon of construction that an interpretation
which renders an express clause otiose is to be
eschewed in favour of the one which gives effect
to the instrument as a whole.
27. The antecedent history of the settlement fortifies
the above construction. The joint application
dated 31.08.2013, whereunder the matrimonial
proceedings were instituted, contemplated a
purely periodic arrangement of payment of
twenty per cent of the annual income towards
maintenance and education of the son, without
any lump-sum component. The Settlement
Petition dated 29.08.2015 substituted the said
arrangement with a defined capital sum of Rs.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 20 of 30
2,20,00,000/- payable in time-bound
installments together with the express
discharge under Clause 10. The parties, thus,
consciously moved from an open-ended income-
linked structure to a capital settlement designed
to achieve finality. To read Clause 9 as
preserving, in parallel with the capital sum, the
very periodic obligation which the settlement
replaced would amount to undoing the
restructuring which the parties themselves
brought about.
28. The conduct of the parties, adverted to by both
the Courts below, is consistent with and
reinforces the above construction. The entire
amount under Clause 8 stood paid by
28.07.2017. The Execution Petition came to be
filed only on 09.03.2022. During the intervening
period of nearly five years, no demand was
raised by the Appellant-wife towards payment of
twenty per cent of the annual income. Had
Clause 9 been understood by the parties as a
subsisting income-linked obligation yielding
recurring annual payments, the absence of any
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 21 of 30
demand over such a long period would be
difficult to explain, more so in the case of the
Appellant-wife, whose own communication
dated 19.08.2015, demanding prompt
settlement of a pending sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-,
shows that she was not given to letting the
amounts due to her go unasked. The High Court
has rightly observed that contemporaneous
insistence upon such payments would have
been the conduct of a prudent man in the
natural course of events. The registered Release
Deed dated 30.08.2021 executed by the
Appellant-wife in favour of the Respondent-
husband in respect of the apartment at
Chennai, the No-Objection Letter dated
31.08.2021 issued by her without any protest or
reservation, and her affidavit dated 04.07.2023
acknowledging receipt of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- as
per Clause 8 without any reservation with
respect to Clause 9, all point in the same
direction.
29. Insofar as the submission founded upon Article
136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is concerned,
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 22 of 30
the same does not advance the case of the
Appellant-wife. Neither the Family Court nor the
High Court dismissed the claim as barred by
limitation. The delay was noticed not as a
ground of limitation but as a circumstance
illuminating the common understanding of the
parties with regard to the meaning and
operation of the settlement. The question being
one of construction and discharge and not of
limitation, the period of twelve years available
for execution is beside the point.
30. Equally, the controversy as to whether the
periodical payments made by the Respondent-
husband represented compliance with Clause 9
or were referable to a pre-existing monthly
arrangement, and the arithmetic canvassed on
either side in that regard, does not survive the
construction adopted hereinabove. Once it is
held that on a true reading of Clauses 8, 9 and
10 the income-linked obligation ceased upon
payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, it becomes
unnecessary to determine the precise character
of the said periodical payments, as nothing
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 23 of 30
turns upon it. For the same reason, we do not
consider it necessary to examine the further
pleas of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and
motive urged on behalf of the Respondent-
husband, the construction of the settlement,
fortified by the conduct noticed hereinabove,
being sufficient for disposal of the present
Appeal.
31. The decisions relied upon by the learned senior
counsel for the Appellant-wife for the
proposition that an earlier clause prevails over
a later one do not come to her aid. The said rule
of construction is attracted only where two
clauses are so repugnant to each other that they
cannot possibly be reconciled. No such
repugnancy exists in the present case. Clause
10 neither contradicts nor derogates from
Clause 9; it merely marks the point at which the
interim obligation under Clause 9 comes to an
end. Clauses 8, 9 and 10 stand together as a
coherent whole and admit of a harmonious
reading. The decisions in Ramkishorelal
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 24 of 30
(supra) , Radha Sundar Dutta (supra) ,
therefore, do not assist the Appellant-wife.
32. The decisions in Kirti Malhotra (supra) and
Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat (supra) ,
pertaining to the subsistence of the obligation of
a father to maintain a dependent child, equally
do not carry the case of the Appellant-wife any
further in the present proceedings. The
Execution Petition seeks enforcement of a
specific covenant of a concluded consent decree.
Where, on its true construction, the said
covenant stands satisfied, a general obligation
to maintain cannot be invoked in execution to
revive a discharged term or to substitute
therefor a fresh and larger provision. The
general principle, whatever be its content,
cannot be made a vehicle for rewriting the terms
of a settlement which the parties themselves
arrived at and acted upon.
33. What remains is the scope of interference under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The
Family Court as also the High Court, on a
concurrent appreciation of the same material,
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 25 of 30
have placed upon the settlement a construction
which is natural, harmonious and fortified by
the conduct of the parties. It is well settled that
this Court, in exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, does not reappreciate the
material or disturb concurrent findings merely
because a different view is possible, and
interference is called for only where the findings
are shown to be perverse or founded upon a
manifest error or misreading of the record. No
such infirmity has been demonstrated before
us. The construction adopted by the Courts
below, in our considered view, is not merely a
plausible one but the correct one, and there is,
thus, no warrant for interference.
34. As a necessary corollary, the prayer for creation
of a corpus towards higher education of the son
in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India cannot be acceded to.
Issuance of such a direction would, in
substance, amount to recasting a settlement
which stands performed and discharged, and
undertaking, in execution, a fresh
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 26 of 30
determination of the quantum of maintenance,
a course not open in the present proceedings.
The jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, wide as it is, cannot be
employed to supplant the concluded and acted-
upon terms of a consensual arrangement
between the parties.
35. This Court is, nonetheless, not unmindful of the
aspirations of the son, with whom it had the
occasion to interact, and of his desire to pursue
higher education abroad. It is in this context
relevant that the Respondent-husband, who
has throughout maintained that his obligations
under the Settlement Petition stand discharged,
deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in the
account of the son in compliance with the order
dated 28.04.2026 and has, vide his written
submissions dated 01.07.2026, expressly
relinquished any right to seek return or
reimbursement of the said sum, stating that the
same is not claimed back and may be applied
towards the welfare of the son. The said
submission, having been made in the interest of
the son, deserves to be recorded and given effect
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 27 of 30
to. It is, however, referable to the volition of the
Respondent-husband and not to any subsisting
liability under Clause 9 which, for the reasons
recorded hereinabove, stands satisfied.
36. The issue as framed in paragraph 23 above
stands answered as follows: ‘Clause 9 of the
Settlement Petition dated 29.08.2015, being an
interim and transitional obligation, stood
satisfied and ceased to operate upon the
payments made in terms of Clauses 8 and 10
thereof, qua which the concurrent findings of
the Family Court and the High Court warrant no
interference under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.’
37. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings
recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the
present Appeal. The concurrent findings
recorded by the Family Court vide order dated
03.01.2024 and by the High Court vide the
Impugned Judgment dated 07.03.2025, that the
obligation under Clause 9 of the Settlement
Petition dated 29.08.2015 stood satisfied upon
payment of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- under Clauses 8
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 28 of 30
and 10 read together, are affirmed. The prayer
for setting aside the Impugned Judgment and
the order of the Family Court is, accordingly,
rejected.
38. The prayer for a declaration that Clause 9 is an
independent and continuing obligation, and for
remand of the matter for computation and
enforcement, also stands rejected.
39. The prayer for creation of a corpus towards
higher education of the son in exercise of powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
stands declined.
40. It is recorded that the Respondent-husband
has, in compliance with the order dated
28.04.2026, deposited a sum of Rs.
1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only), in two
tranches of Rs. 50,00,000/- each transferred on
30.04.2026 and 01.05.2026, in the account of
the son, Aarav C. Balaji, maintained with the
HDFC Bank, J.P. Nagar Branch (Account No.
99999920032006), and has, vide his written
submissions dated 01.07.2026, relinquished
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 29 of 30
any right to seek return or reimbursement
thereof. The said submission is recorded and
accepted.
41. The said sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore only) shall stand available to the son,
Aarav C. Balaji, for his higher education. The
Appellant-wife shall ensure that the said
amount is utilised solely towards the
educational expenses of the son.
42. As a consequence of the above, the present
Appeal stands dismissed in the above terms.
43. There shall be no order as to costs.
44. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
…….……..………..………………..J.
[ SANJAY KAROL ]
…….……..………..………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 21, 2026.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.19770/2025 Page 30 of 30