The Delhi High Court on September 23, 2025, refused to quash a maintenance petition filed by a woman and her minor son against her former husband, despite a prior full and final settlement of ₹33 lakh at the time of divorce. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while disposing of the petition, made it clear that the rights of a child cannot be compromised by agreements between parents.
Background
The case involved petitioner Umar Haris, who married respondent Yusra Meraj in January 2018. The couple had a son in October 2019 but separated in May 2021 following disputes. Later that year, on November 25, 2021, they entered into a settlement under Talaq-e-Khula, where the wife accepted ₹33 lakh in full and final settlement for herself and the child, along with custody arrangements and visitation rights for the father.
Despite this arrangement, in September 2023, Yusra approached the family court seeking ₹1.2 lakh per month as maintenance for herself and the child. Umar challenged this petition before the High Court, arguing it was a blatant misuse of the legal process since all claims had already been settled. He accused his former wife of parental alienation, alleging that she obstructed his visitation rights and filed fresh litigation only to harass him.
Court's Observations
Justice Krishna noted that while the parents had agreed upon a settlement, the law recognizes the child’s independent right to claim maintenance.
"The Settlement Agreement dated 25.11.2021 between the petitioner and Respondent No.2, cannot be a basis to outrightly say that the Maintenance Petition is not maintainable, especially when it includes the maintenance of the child," the court observed.
On the argument that Yusra had voluntarily given up her right to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, the court held:
"Once a wife is divorced, she is per se entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C irrespective of the ground or the manner in which the divorce is taken."
The court also emphasized that whether there were "changed circumstances" since the 2021 settlement was a matter of fact that could only be adjudicated by the family court. Justice Krishna remarked that the husband’s late challenge - filed only when interim maintenance was being considered - undermined his claim for quashing at the threshold.
Decision
Concluding that the petition raised "mixed questions of fact and law," the High Court declined to quash the maintenance proceedings. Instead, it directed that Umar Haris was free to raise all his objections, including the existence of the earlier settlement, before the family court.
"The issues essentially have to be determined on the facts of the case… therefore, it is concluded that this is not a fit case for quashing of the Maintenance Petition," the judge ruled, disposing of the plea.
Case Title: Umar Haris vs. Yusra Meraj & Anr.
Date of Decision: 23rd September, 2025