Article 142 Cannot Be Used To Supplant Concluded & Acted-Upon Settlement Between Parties : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that its inherent jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to supplant or amend the terms of the consensual arrangements between the parties.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed a wife's plea, which sought to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to recast the divorce settlement agreement arrived at between herself and her husband. The Court refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to accede to the Appellant-Wife's demand for creation of an additional corpus of approximately Rupees Six Crore to Rupees Six Crore Fifty Lakh towards higher education of the son as a one-time measure.

“As a necessary corollary, the prayer for creation of a corpus towards higher education of the son in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be acceded to. Issuance of such a direction would, in substance, amount to recasting a settlement which stands performed and discharged, and undertaking, in execution, a fresh determination of the quantum of maintenance, a course not open in the present proceedings. The jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, wide as it is, cannot be employed to supplant the concluded and acted upon terms of a consensual arrangement between the parties.”, the Court observed.

Background

The dispute arose from the execution of a divorce settlement entered into between a husband and wife whose marriage was dissolved by mutual consent in 2015.

Under the settlement, the husband agreed to pay ₹2.20 crore as a lump sum towards the maintenance of their minor son and also to pay 20% of his annual income towards the child's maintenance. However, another clause provided that after payment of ₹1 crore, the husband would not be liable to pay any further maintenance, while the remaining ₹1.20 crore was also to be paid under the settlement.

After the husband paid the entire ₹2.20 crore by July 2017, the wife, nearly five years later, filed an execution petition seeking enforcement of the clause requiring payment of 20% of the husband's annual income.

The Family Court and the High Court rejected her plea, holding that the settlement had been fully discharged.

Aggrieved, the wife approached the Supreme Court, also seeking creation of a corpus for the son's higher education under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned findings, the Court, therefore, made the aforesaid observation about its reluctance to re-open the settlement, which stands discharged between the parties upon full and final payment made by the Respondent -husband.

Headnote

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 19(1) – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13B & Section 28A – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 10 – Execution of Consent Decree – Interpretation of Compromise/Settlement Clauses - The dispute pertained to the construction of Clauses 8, 9, and 10 of a Settlement Petition incorporated into a mutual consent divorce decree - Clause 8 specified a lump-sum maintenance of ₹2.20 Crores for the minor son payable in installments - Clause 9 linked maintenance to 20% of the husband's annual income - Clause 10 explicitly declared that upon payment of the first ₹1 Crore out of the Clause 8 amount, the husband "need not pay any further amount towards maintenance" - The appellant wife filed an execution petition approximately five years after the final lump-sum payment, seeking enforcement of the income-linked maintenance under Clause 9. Interlocking Arrangement vs Independent Obligation - Held, that a combined and harmonious reading of the clauses discloses a single interlocking arrangement rather than three independent obligations - Clause 8 fixed the total quantum of maintenance; Clause 9 provided an interim, transitional income-linked mechanism to secure maintenance while the lump sum was being arranged; and Clause 10 identified the definitive point of discharge - Reading Clause 9 as a permanent, standalone obligation would render the express discharge language of Clause 10 entirely redundant and otiose.

Powers of the Executing Court - The executing court cannot go behind the decree; it must execute the decree as it stands and cannot embark upon a fresh adjudication of rights or substitute a consensual arrangement with a fresh or larger provision - The conduct of the appellant-wife in raising no demand for the income-linked component for nearly five years after the final instalment, alongside executing unconditional release deeds and affidavits acknowledging full receipt of the settlement amount, reinforces the common understanding that the income-linked obligation stood extinguished - The Supreme Court declined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142 to create a fresh educational corpus, reaffirming that the wide powers under Article 142 cannot be employed to supplant or recast the concluded and performed terms of a consensual settlement between financially independent parties. [Paras 20 - 41]

Cause Title: VIJAYALAKSHMI R. VERSUS C. L. BALAJI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 706

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Adv. Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., AOR Ms. Ayesha Zaidi, Adv. Mr. Akif Abidi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shiraz Patodia, Adv. Ms. Divya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Ms. Juhi Chawla, Adv. Mr. Thapo Shreshta, Adv. Ms. Vimla Pinto, Adv. Mr. Adityaraj Patodia, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Shahi, Adv. M/S. Dua Associates, AOR