‘She has fundamental right to pursue her education’
New Delhi: Daughter has an indefeasible, legally enforceable and legitimate right to secure educational expenses from her parents, who can be compelled to provide necessary funds within their means, the Supreme Court recently said.
The remarks of a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan came in a matrimonial dispute in which the daughter of the estranged couple, who was studying in Ireland, refused to accept Rs 43 lakh given by her father towards her studies as part of the total alimony being paid to her mother.
“She, being the daughter, has an indefeasible, legally enforceable, lawful, and legitimate right to secure educational expenses from her parents. All that we observe is that the daughter has a fundamental right to pursue her education, for which the parents could be compelled to provide necessary funds within the limit of their financial resources,” said the bench’s January 2 order.
The daughter of the parties, it said, to maintain her own dignity had declined to retain the amount and asked him to take the money back but he refused.
The daughter was legally entitled to the amount, the court said.
The father was said to have spent the money without any compelling reasons, indicating he was financially sound to provide her with the financial assistance towards her academic pursuits.
“Respondent number 2 (daughter) has, thus, got a right to retain that amount. She need not, therefore, return that amount either to the appellant (mother) or to respondent number 1 (father), and may suitably appropriate it as she may deem fit,” said the court.
The bench referred to the settlement agreement entered into by the estranged couple on November 28, 2024 which was also signed by the daughter.
The court said the husband had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs 73 lakh to his estranged wife and daughter, of which Rs 43 lakh was meant for his daughter’s academic goals, and the rest for his wife.
It observed since the wife had received her Rs 30 lakh share, and the parties were admittedly living separately for the last 26 years, the bench saw no reason to not grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
“Consequently, we invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolve the marriage of the parties by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent,” it held.
The court further directed as a result of the settlement agreement, the parties should not pursue any court case against each other, and if there was a pending case before any forum, it should be disposed of in terms of the agreement.
“The parties shall have no claim against each other in future and shall abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, which shall form part of this order,” it said.
