Wife's Waiver Of Future Maintenance Is Against Public Policy: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a wife’s agreement to waive her right to future maintenance in exchange for a lump sum amount is against public policy and does not prevent her from seeking maintenance later under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Background Of The Case

The observation was made when a petition to revise a Family Court order was dismissed on appeal by a husband. The Hoshiarpur Family Court had ordered him to make a monthly maintenance of Rs 6,000 to his wife from the date of the application.

The husband claimed that the wife had been paid Rs 60,000 as a one-time settlement to pay her past, present and future maintenance. According to him, this settlement was enough for her to refrain from any further claims.

Courts' Opinion On Waiver Of Maintenance

The High Court overturned this argument and said that these agreements cannot be legally binding in cases where they seek to deprive a statutory right. It is believed that the right to maintenance is a legal protection under Section 125 CrPC, which cannot be waived through any personal settlement.

The bench observed that the agreement, which involves a wife waiving her right to future maintenance in exchange for money, is against national policy. Thus, it cannot prevent her from approaching the court again when she is not able to support herself.

The court used a previous Supreme Court ruling in which they had made a similar decision, which solidified that these waivers were not enforceable by the law.

Right To Maintenance Despite Earning

The husband also claimed that the wife was capable of supporting herself as she had worked as a private maid. He also mentioned that his personal earnings were just about Rs 10,000 per month as a daily wager.

The wife confessed to having been employed previously, but her earnings were too low and only enough to afford basic food and clothing.

The court noted that the fact that a woman tries to survive by means of physical labour does not imply that she is independent. It clarified that merely earning a small amount does not disqualify a person from claiming maintenance.

It further added that the wife cannot be expected to be left without maintenance until a court orders the husband to pay.

Assessment Of Husband’s Income

When considering the financial position of the husband, the court observed that the husband had been educated up to 10+2, and he had a diploma in electrical engineering. He was also described as a talented mason.

Considering these factors, in addition to the minimum wage requirements, it was reasonable to the court to estimate that his monthly income was Rs 20,000, and not Rs 10,000, as he had argued.

Another factor that the court looked at when determining the amount of maintenance was the increasing cost of living and the prices of basic commodities.

Maintenance Amount Upheld

The High Court said that the Family Court had been right in granting the Rs 6,000 monthly maintenance to the wife. It was observed that the value was sufficient to meet the basic needs like food, clothing, shelter and medical bills.

The court further noted that the prior payment of 60,000 could not be considered as enough to be used as lifelong maintenance. This amount, being a one-time sum, could not guarantee financial security in the long term, considering inflation and rising living expenses.

The court found that the previous acceptance of a lump sum settlement by the wife did not preclude her legal right to claim maintenance. It confirmed that the rights under statutes could not be bypassed or compromised by private agreements, in particular, especially when they tend to affect the fundamentals of financial security.

With these observations, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s order and dismissed the husband’s petition.