Mere Completion Of Engineering Degree Does Not Guarantee Gainful Employment In These Competitive Times: SC Directs Father To Pay 1Cr As Maintenance To Adult Son
The Supreme Court has directed a father to pay Rs. 1 crore towards the ‘maintenance and care’ of his adult son who had just graduated, after observing that mere completion of his engineering degree does not guarantee gainful employment in these competitive times.
The Court dissolved the marriage between the parties exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed the husband to pay Rs. 5 crore as a one-time settlement for the maintenance and financial security of the wife.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “It is also equitable and only obligatory for a father to provide for his children, especially when they have the means and the capacity to do the same. Even though the son is now major and has just finished his engineering degree, the High Court has rightly observed that it is only after completion of a college/ university degree and in some cases, completing a post-graduation/ professional degree, would the child be able to secure employment. In fact, it can safely be concluded that, in today's competitive world, gainful employment may be feasible only after the child has pursued education beyond 18 years of age. Mere completion of his engineering degree does not guarantee a gainful employment, in these competitive times.”
AOR Viresh B. Saharya represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain appeared for the Respondent.
The parties married in 1998 but were living separately since 2004. The son, born in 2001, resided with the wife. The husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty in 2004, which was later withdrawn in 2016. The wife filed applications for interim maintenance under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had directed interim maintenance for the son until he turned 26 or became financially independent. The husband challenged this, arguing that a major son was not entitled to maintenance and contested the quantum awarded.
The Supreme Court noted that the parties were litigating maintenance proceedings for a prolonged period and that there was no cogent reason to only deal with the issue of interim maintenance after twenty years of strained relationship and separation. “These facts are admitted by the parties before us, and they have also mutually agreed for the dissolution of their marriage. Therefore, we believe that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved by this Court while exercising the discretionary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,” the Court held.
The Bench noted that the wife in this case was unemployed while the husband was a well-accomplished banker who had worked in multiple senior roles at various banks over the years. The Court also noted that the husband had paid for the son’s education as well as paid the interim maintenance as ordered by the Family Court.
“The appellant herein has sufficient means to support his child, and thus provision should also be made for his maintenance and financial security as well. An amount of Rs. 1 crore (Rupees one crore only) towards the maintenance and care of the son appears to be fair, which he can utilize for his higher education and as security till he becomes financially independent,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “Decree of divorce be granted in exercise of this Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Further, the appellant shall pay the amount provided above towards permanent alimony to the respondent and his son within the time stipulated above.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the Appeal.
Cause Title: P v. A (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 961)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Viresh B. Saharya
Respondent: Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain; AOR Rishi Raj Sharma; Advocates Anu Narula, Sarfaraz Ahmad and Harshita Sukhija