The Supreme Court has turned down a Bengaluru woman's attempt to reopen her divorce settlement and claim a fresh share of her ex-husband's annual income as maintenance for their son, ruling that the couple's own agreement had already closed that chapter years ago.
A bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sanjay Karol dismissed the appeal filed by Vijayalakshmi R. against C. L. Balaji, upholding the findings of both the Family Court and the Karnataka High Court.
Background of the Case
Vijayalakshmi and Balaji got married in May 2000 and had a son, Aarav, in 2006. The couple started living apart in 2011 and later filed for divorce by mutual consent. In August 2015, they signed a settlement petition laying out the financial terms, and the Family Court dissolved the marriage based on that agreement.
The trouble began years later, when the wife tried to enforce Clause 9 of that settlement, which said the husband would pay twenty percent of his annual income for the son's education and upkeep. The husband argued this obligation had already ended under Clause 10, once he paid the first installment of Rs 1 crore out of the total Rs 2.2 crore he owed under Clause 8. He said he had, in fact, paid the entire amount by July 2017 - more than Rs 2.5 crore in total - and that nothing more was due.
The wife disagreed. She approached the Family Court in 2022 through an execution petition, asking for twenty percent of the husband's yearly income along with interest. The Family Court rejected her plea, and the Karnataka High Court later confirmed that decision in March 2025.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Her lawyer argued that Clause 9 was a separate, ongoing promise that had nothing to do with the lump sum under Clause 8, and that reading it as extinguished would make the clause meaningless. Reliance was placed on the idea that a father's duty to support a dependent child continues even after he turns eighteen, especially while he is still studying.
The husband's side countered that all three clauses were part of one single package — Clause 8 fixed the total amount, Clause 9 only covered the gap period while he was still selling property to raise funds, and Clause 10 marked the point where everything came to a close. They also pointed to the wife's own conduct: no demand for the income-linked payment was raised for nearly five years after the last installment, she had signed release deeds and no-objection letters without objection, and even in a 2023 affidavit she had accepted receiving the full settlement amount without reservation.
Court's Observations
The bench found the language of Clause 10 clear and complete. It noted that once the husband paid Rs 1 crore, he was not required to pay any further amount towards maintenance, and this wording did not carve out any exception for the income-based payment under Clause 9.
The bench observed that the three clauses formed a single, interlocking arrangement rather than three independent promises, and treating Clause 9 as a permanent, standalone obligation would render Clause 10 meaningless.
The judges also weighed in on the wife's silence over the years, noting that a demand at the right time would have been the conduct of a prudent person, and her long delay pointed to her own understanding that the matter stood closed.
The Court made it clear that an execution court cannot rewrite a settlement or go beyond what the decree actually says, and it does not disturb concurrent findings of two courts unless they are clearly wrong or based on a misreading of facts.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Clause 9 had served its purpose as a transitional arrangement and stood satisfied once the payments under Clauses 8 and 10 were made. It also declined the wife's request to create a separate education fund of around Rs 6 to 6.5 crore for the son using its special powers under Article 142.
However, the Court took note of an earlier interim order in which the husband had already transferred Rs 1 crore for the son's higher studies abroad, in electrical engineering and chip design. The husband had voluntarily given up any claim to get that money back, and the Court directed that this amount remain with the son for his education, with the mother ensuring it is used only for that purpose.
With this, the appeal was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Vijayalakshmi R. v. C. L. Balaji
Case Number: Civil Appeal of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19770 of 2025)
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Decision Date: July 21, 2026
