The Supreme Court on Friday facilitated a negotiated settlement in a matrimonial dispute, directing the husband to pay ₹40 lakh as a one-time lump sum to his estranged wife while also bearing the full educational expenses of their nine-year-old son.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta intervened after learning that despite earlier negotiations, “they have not been able to sit together,” though there had been discussions about providing a plot of land, financial support, and arrangements for the child’s future.
During the hearing, the wife’s side submitted that she was willing to settle if provided “a plot in Baghpat with a small constructed house,” explaining that she was “not in a position that she can build a house.” Counsel added that the earlier offer of ₹20 lakh should be enhanced to ₹35 lakh, stating, “She has not been able to live her life.”
The husband, on the other hand, informed the Court that he has since remarried and has another child, said he was willing to pay ₹15 lakh along with a 100 square yard plot and bear “entire expenses of the child for education, marriage, whatever in future.” He also offered an additional ₹2 lakh for construction. The bench responded candidly,
“What is constructed in two lakhs nowadays? She wants a roof on top of her head.”
Rejecting piecemeal arrangements, the Court suggested a consolidated figure. “You keep the plot with you… you pay a total figure of ₹50 lakh,” the bench proposed. On the husband’s denial, the Court cautioned, “Then we reverse your decree of divorce?” Ultimately, the court proposed ₹40 lakh for settlement.
After brief consultations between counsel and parties, the husband agreed to enhance the offer. The Court ultimately recorded the husband’s agreement that “Rupees 40 lakhs to be paid by the respondent as a one-time lump sum settlement,” covering arrangements for the wife’s residence.
As per the order dictated in court, ₹40 lakh is to be paid on or before 31 March 2026. Upon receipt of the full amount, the wife will vacate her father-in-law’s house within 3 months.
On child custody and visitation, the Court directed that the father be allowed to meet the child “once in a month” and share summer vacations equally, with “50% of the vacation with the father and 50% with the mother.” The husband’s request that custody shift to him in the event of the wife’s remarriage was firmly declined by the court.
The Court further ordered that while the existing maintenance arrangement would cease after March 2026, the husband would continue to bear all educational expenses of the child.
“All cases pending between the parties shall stand closed,” the bench directed, bringing an end to multiple litigations arising out of the marital dispute.