The Supreme Court has held that an income-linked maintenance clause in a divorce settlement petition operates as a transitional arrangement and ceases once the agreed lump-sum settlement amount is paid in full. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal filed by a mother seeking execution of a 20 per cent annual income maintenance clause against her former husband after the agreed capital sum of Rs 2.20 crore had already been paid.
Background Of The Case
The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnised on May 7, 2000, in Bengaluru, and a son was born to them in 2006. Following differences, the parties began living separately in September 2011 and subsequently filed a joint petition for mutual consent divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
On August 29, 2015, the Family Court dissolved the marriage in terms of a mutually agreed Settlement Petition. The controversy centered around the construction of Clauses 8, 9, and 10 of the settlement:
- Clause 8: The husband agreed to pay Rs 2,20,00,000 towards maintenance for his minor son in installments by disposing of immovable properties.
- Clause 9: The husband agreed to pay 20 per cent of his annual income (inclusive of monthly salary, bonus, stock options, and other forms of income received from the employer after statutory dues) to the wife for the son’s education and maintenance.
- Clause 10: The husband agreed to pay Rs 2 Crore towards maintenance as stated in Clause 8, out of which Rs 1 Crore was to be paid on or before June 30, 2016, following which he “need not pay any further amount towards maintenance”, with the remaining balance of Rs 1,20,00,000 to be settled on or before June 30, 2017.
The husband paid the entire sum of Rs 2.20 crore by July 28, 2017, paying a total sum of over Rs 2.53 crore towards maintenance. However, on March 9, 2022, the wife filed an Execution Petition before the Family Court seeking enforcement of Clause 9, demanding 20 per cent of the husband’s annual income along with interest.
The Family Court dismissed the Execution Petition on January 3, 2024, holding that Clause 9 became inoperative upon payment under Clause 10. The High Court of Karnataka affirmed this decision on March 7, 2025, observing that the Family Court’s finding was “just and proper and in consonance with the clear terms of the compromise petition”. Aggrieved by these orders, the wife appealed to the Supreme Court.
Arguments Of The Parties
Senior counsel appearing for the appellant-wife argued that Clause 9 was an independent, continuing obligation distinct from Clause 8, requiring the husband to pay 20 per cent of his annual income until the son attained 23 years of age or completed post-graduation. It was submitted that treating Clause 9 as extinguished would render its express terms redundant.
The appellant relied on Kirti Malhotra v. M.K. Malhotra and Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat v. Ajayveer Chapotkat to contend that a father’s obligation to maintain a dependent child pursuing studies subsists even after majority. Relying on Ramkishorelal v. Kamal Narayan and Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim, it was argued that where clauses in an instrument conflict, the earlier clause must prevail over the later. The appellant also prayed for the creation of a one-time corpus of approximately Rs 6 crore to Rs 6.5 crore under Article 142 of the Constitution for the son’s higher education.
Per contra, senior counsel for the respondent-husband argued that Clauses 8, 9, and 10 constituted a single composite arrangement. Clause 8 fixed the total lump sum, Clause 9 provided interim maintenance while the husband liquidated properties, and Clause 10 marked the termination of further maintenance obligations. The husband’s counsel pointed out that the wife raised no demand for nearly five years after the last payment and had executed release deeds and no-objection letters without protest.
Court’s Analysis And Findings
The Supreme Court framed the primary legal issue as: “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?”
The bench observed that in execution proceedings, the court cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it stands. Examining the terms of the settlement, the Supreme Court held that the language of Clause 10 was plain and unqualified:
“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 Court noted that reading the clauses together reveals a single interlocking arrangement:
“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.”
Addressing the precedent cases cited by the appellant, the Court noted that the rule of an earlier clause prevailing over a later one (Ramkishorelal and Radha Sundar Dutta) applies only where two clauses are irreconcilable, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the decisions in Kirti Malhotra and Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat regarding a father’s duty could not be used to rewrite the terms of an executed consensual decree.
The Court also declined to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to create an additional corpus, stating that such a direction would amount to recasting a performed settlement.
The Decision
Answering the issue, the Supreme Court held: “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.”
The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the High Court.
During the proceedings, following an interaction with the son regarding his desire to pursue foreign studies in Electrical Engineering and Chip Design, the husband had deposited Rs 1 crore in the son’s account pursuant to an interim direction dated April 28, 2026. The Supreme Court recorded and accepted the husband’s voluntary statement relinquishing any right to seek reimbursement of the said Rs 1 crore, making it available exclusively for the son’s higher education.
Case Title: Vijayalakshmi R. v. C. L. Balaji
Case No.: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19770 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: July 21, 2026
