Wife's Right To Maintenance Cannot Be Waived By Way Of Contract: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen relied on various judgment of the Supreme Court and the High Court and observed thus:

“...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.”

In the instant case, the former husband challenged the trial court's order directing him to pay his ex-wife Rs. 30,000 as interim maintenance. He claimed that as per an agreement entered between them, all disputes regarding dowry, alimony and maintenance were settled between them.

The Court however noted that from the same agreement itself it was clear that no payment was made towards maintenance and the wife waived her claim for maintenance. The High Court held that such relinquishment of right to maintenance has no legal footing.

As per the ex-wife, she was subjected to acts of domestic violence for dowry before their divorce.

The court relying on Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another (2014) held that even an ex-wife can claim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The wife had claimed that the husband is a pilot and was making Rs. 15 Lakhs per month. As per his admission, he was making Rs. 8,35,000 per month. He also stated that the wife was making Rs. 2 Lakhs per month from a Yoga studio she was running.

The Court said that when the husband is admittedly making Rs. 8,35,000 per month and the income of the wife is not yet established before the Court, the order of the trial court granting interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000 need not be interfered with.

It added that the question whether the wife has independent income and the details of her assets were matters of evidence which need not be looked into by the High Court while considering an application for interim maintenance. The Court added that the trial court can decide the question of maintenance based on the 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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 261