Read Time: 05 minutes

The Supreme Court recently while granting a decree of divorce on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the parties exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, held that as far as the daughter’s expenses for education and marriage were concerned, she could not demand any amount from her father since she was not interested to maintain a relationship with him.

"...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...", held the Court.

Accordingly, the Court went on to fix permanent alimony of the respondent-wife Seema Rathee, at Rs.8,000/- per month along with Rs.10,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all claims.

A bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh was informed in September last year that the appellant Ajay Kumar Rathee and his wife Seema were staying separately since 2002/ 2004 and they would endeavor to work out a settlement and thus sought deferment of hearing.

Seema then told the court in October that she was not averse to a mutual consent divorce and flagged the issue on the maintenance for the last 10 months fixed by the trial Court of Rs.8,000/- per month not being paid and the sole child-daughter, has got admission to a college and the appellant must bear expenses for her education.

In order to develop and encourage a rapport between the daughter and the appellant, the court requested to arrange a meeting between the two. The bench had further observed that the daughter would have to develop some interaction with the appellant-father if she wants him to play a role in her education.

The court was later informed that the talks between the father-daughter became acrimonious and unpleasant while they had telephonic conversations.

Thus while denying any amount to the daughter, the court held that, 

"We are 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."

It was further ordered that the amount of alimony be deposited with the Court within two months to be released to the respondent-wife.

Case Title: AJAY KUMAR RATHEE vs. SEEMA RATHEE