Wife's Compromise Waiving Future Maintenance Is Against Public Policy; Doesn't Bar Her Claims U/S 125 CrPC: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that an agreement in which the wife waives her right to claim maintenance from the husband in the future, in exchange for a sum, is opposed to public policy and the same does not estop her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, a statutory right.

"Abandonment of right of maintenance by the wife would not negate her claim for maintenance," a bench of Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal noted as it dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband.

The petitioner challenged a judgment passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Hoshiarpur, which awarded his wife monthly maintenance of ₹6,000 from the date of her application.

It was his case that the wife had already received a lump sum of ₹60,000 for her past, present, and future maintenance pursuant to a compromise with the husband, wherein she effectively waived her future right to maintenance.

He further contended that she was an able-bodied woman who admitted to working as a private maid and thus, she could maintain herself. He also submitted that he was a daily wager and was earning only ₹10,000/- per month.

The wife, on the other hand, admitted that she had previously worked as a maid, but her earnings barely covered her basic food and clothing needs. In view of this, the bench said that her attempt to survive "by dint of her physical labour" does not debar her from claiming maintenance. It observed thus:

"Since the husband was not providing any maintenance to the wife, her attempt to survive by dint of her physical labour cannot debar her from claiming maintenance from the husband, nor can it be held that she is not covered within the ambit of 'unable to maintain herself'. Till the Court compels the husband to pay maintenance allowance, the wife cannot be expected to sit and starve".

Regarding the husband's contention that the wife had waived her right to future maintenance, the bench relied upon the Supreme Court's 1978 judgment in Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fidaalli Chothia. It is observed thus:

"...an agreement entered into between the wife and the husband, as a 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 against receipt of some amount is opposed to public policy and does not estop her from claiming maintenance."

Consequently, the Court said that the abandonment of the right of maintenance by the wife would not negate her claim. It added that the receipt of ₹60,000 previously does not preclude her from asserting her rights, as the said amount would not last a lifetime and it was insufficient.

Furthermore, the bench took into account rising prices of essential commodities and the cost of living and noted that the Court Family Court's estimation of the husband's income at ₹20,000 per month was reasonable.

"The husband, as per his own admission is 10th+2 qualified and a diploma holder of electrical engineering. He is healthy and able-bodied. He is a skilled worker working as a mason in the village. Estimation of his income at ₹20,000/- per month cannot be said to be on the higher side, considering the minimum wages notified by the State for a skilled worker," the single judge stated.

With this, the Court upheld the maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/-, considering the reasonable wants of the wife, including provision for her food, clothing, shelter, and medical treatment. Thus, the petition was dismissed.