In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed that a wife's statutory right to maintenance cannot be relinquished through a private agreement with her husband. Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the case of Laju Cherian v. Tara Laju and State of Kerala, emphasized that any contract wherein a wife waives her entitlement to maintenance is contrary to public policy and holds no legal validity.
The case arose when the former husband challenged a trial court's directive mandating him to pay ₹30,000 as interim maintenance to his ex-wife. He contended that an agreement existed between them, settling all disputes related to dowry, alimony, and maintenance, thereby nullifying her claim. However, the High Court observed that the agreement explicitly indicated no payment was made towards maintenance, and the wife had waived her claim. The Court held that such a waiver lacks legal standing, as it contravenes established legal principles and public policy.
Justice Badharudeen referenced various judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts to support this stance. He highlighted that agreements where a wife relinquishes her right to future maintenance, whether part of a court-filed compromise or otherwise, are unenforceable. The Court underscored that such agreements do not preclude a wife from claiming maintenance, as they are opposed to public policy.
Further, the Court noted that the ex-wife alleged domestic violence for dowry before their divorce. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, the High Court affirmed that even an ex-wife retains the right to claim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Regarding the financial aspects, the wife claimed that her husband, a pilot, earned ₹15 lakhs per month. The husband admitted to an income of ₹8.35 lakhs monthly and asserted that the wife earned ₹2 lakhs per month from her yoga studio. The Court, however, emphasized that the husband's substantial income and the unestablished nature of the wife's earnings justified the interim maintenance order. It clarified that the question of the wife's independent income and asset details are evidentiary matters to be determined by the trial court.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court's ruling reinforces the principle that a wife's right to maintenance is a statutory entitlement that cannot be negated by private agreements. This decision upholds the protective intent of maintenance laws, ensuring that women are not deprived of their rights due to contractual waivers that contravene public policy.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.