The Kerala High Court has ruled that a wife’s right to claim maintenance cannot be waived off by a private agreement between the husband and wife. The Court clarified that any such waiver, even if documented, has no legal force and is against public policy.
Justice A. Badharudeen, while considering the matter, cited several previous rulings of the Supreme Court and High Courts and clearly stated:
Read also: Kerala High Court: Set-Off Period Cannot Be Considered for Remission Calculation
“The legal position is very clear on the point that when an agreement is entered into between the wife and the husband, as part of a compromise filed in the Court or otherwise, whereby the wife relinquishes or waives the right to claim maintenance in future from the husband, such agreement is opposed to public policy and it does not preclude her from claiming maintenance.”
This observation was made in a case where the ex-husband had approached the High Court challenging a trial court order that directed him to pay ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance to his former wife. He argued that a prior agreement had settled all matters related to dowry, alimony, and maintenance between them.
However, the High Court noted that the agreement submitted did not include any actual payment made towards maintenance. Instead, it merely stated that the wife had waived her right to claim maintenance. Based on this, the Court held that:
“Such relinquishment of the right to maintenance has no legal standing.”
In her defense, the ex-wife alleged that she had faced domestic violence and harassment over dowry before the divorce. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another (2014), the Kerala High Court reiterated that even a divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Further, the woman claimed that her former husband, a pilot, was earning nearly ₹15 lakhs per month. In response, the husband admitted his monthly income was ₹8,35,000. He also claimed that the wife was earning ₹2 lakhs per month from a yoga studio.
Despite this, the High Court refused to interfere with the trial court's interim maintenance order, observing:
“When the husband is admittedly earning ₹8,35,000 per month and the income of the wife is not yet established before the Court, the interim maintenance of ₹30,000 does not require interference.”
The Court further clarified that the determination of whether the wife has sufficient independent income or any assets is a matter of evidence and must be decided by the trial court based on the facts presented during the trial. The High Court emphasized:
“The trial court can take an independent decision regarding the entitlement of maintenance based on available evidence.”
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates P. A. Ayub Khan, Niji K. Shahul
Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. Rema Smrithi V. K., Jibu T. S. (PP)
Case No: Crl.Rev. Pet 1121 of 2024
Case Title: Laju Cherian v Tara Laju and State of Kerala
