The Kerala High Court, in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 1121 of 2024, has upheld the concurrent decisions of the trial court and the appellate court granting interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month to a divorced wife, despite the existence of an agreement purporting to waive her maintenance rights.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment on April 10, 2025, dismissing the revision petition filed by the husband challenging the orders of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IV (Mobile), Thiruvananthapuram, and the II Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
Background:
The petitioner (wife) had approached the trial court under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking various reliefs, including interim maintenance under Section 23. The marriage between the parties was dissolved in 2018. The petitioner alleged that she had been subjected to domestic violence, forced to bring 301 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹10 lakh in cash, and was left without means for maintenance. She claimed that the respondent (husband), a Pilot by profession, earned more than ₹15 lakh per month.
The respondent contested the claim, relying on an agreement (Annexure A2) executed between the parties before a Notary Public on 28.10.2017, wherein the petitioner allegedly waived all rights to maintenance. He further contended that the petitioner was independently earning ₹2 lakh per month from running a Yoga Centre.
Court’s Analysis:
The trial court disbelieved the claim regarding the petitioner’s independent income due to lack of material evidence. Noting the respondent’s monthly gross salary of ₹8,35,000, as disclosed in his statement of assets and liabilities, the trial court awarded ₹30,000 as interim monthly maintenance. This order was affirmed by the appellate court.
Justice Badharudeen considered several issues, notably whether the waiver or abandonment of maintenance rights by a wife could bar her from claiming maintenance. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including Bhupinder Singh v. Daljit Kaur [(1979) 1 SCC 352], Haroon v. Sainabha [(1992) 1 KLT 868], and Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fidaalli Chothia [(1979) 2 SCC 316], the Court held that any agreement waiving a statutory right to maintenance is opposed to public policy and unenforceable.
The Court emphasized:
“Waiver or abandonment of right of maintenance by the wife would not negate the claim of maintenance by the wife or by the child/children.”
Further referring to Rajnesh v. Neha [AIR 2021 SC 569], the Court reiterated that interim maintenance should be awarded based on financial capacity, reasonable needs, and standard of living, cautioning against relying on unproven claims of income by either party.
Addressing the contention about the waiver agreement (Annexure A2), the Court noted that the document did not explicitly record any payment toward maintenance. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim could not be negated based on the agreement.
Additionally, relying on Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori [(2014) 10 SCC 736], the Court held that acts of domestic violence committed before the dissolution of marriage entitle a divorced wife to relief under the Domestic Violence Act.
Decision:
The High Court dismissed the revision petition and directed the respondent to clear the entire arrears of interim maintenance within 30 days, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue coercive measures under the law.
The interim stay granted earlier was vacated, and the Registry was instructed to forward a copy of the order to the jurisdictional court for further steps.
