RPFC No. 375 of 2019 (Avani P.P. and E.G. Anithamol v. Pratheesh P.C.)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 3RD ASWINA, 1942** ## **RPFC.No.375 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.117/2017 DATED 28-09-2018 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:** **1 AVANI P.P., AGED 8 YEARS (MINOR) D/O. PRATHEESH P.C., KALOORKUNNU, MOODAKOLLY P.O, VAKERI, POOTHADI AMSOM DESOM, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER THE 2ND PETITIONER.** **2 E.G. ANITHAMOL, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.GANGADHARAN, KALOORKUNNU, MOODAKOLLY P.O, VAKERI, POOTHADI AMSOM DESOM, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JIKKU SEBAN GEORGE SRI.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **PRATHEESH P.C, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.CHANDU, PANTHRAMBATH HOUSE, KARACHAL POST, AMBALAVAYAL VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, (AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION LIMIT)** **BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE** **THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-09-2020, THE COURT ON 25-09-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **RPFC.No.375/2019** **2** ## **C.R.** ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 25[th] day of September, 2020 The revision on hand is filed against an order passed by Family Court, Kalpetta on 28.09.2018 dismissing M.C.No.117 of 2017 filed by the 2[nd] revision petitioner who is none other than the wife of the respondent for and on behalf of the 1[st] revision petitioner, the minor daughter born to her in her marriage with the respondent. A claim for Rs.10,000/- was raised in M.C.No.117 of 2017 as monthly maintenance to the 1[st] revision petitioner and the same was declined by the Family Court on the basis of Ext.P4 agreement executed by the 2[nd] revision petitioner and the respondent at the time of filing of a joint petition seeking divorce, whereby, the 2[nd] revision petitioner had relinquished the right of the 1[st] revision petitioner to get monthly maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C after receiving Rs.1,25,000/- + Rs.50,000/- from the respondent for and on behalf of the 1[st] revision petitioner. 2. It is urged by Adv.Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned counsel on behalf of the revision petitioners that the **RPFC.No.375/2019** **3** entitlement of the 1[st] revision petitioner to get monthly maintenance from her father is a right available under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and being a statutory right, it cannot be waived or relinquished by her mother while representing her as next friend during her age of minority, by accepting a lumpsum amount. The learned counsel has also relied on **Vikraman Nair & Another v. Aishwarya & Others [2018 (4) KLJ 528 ]** to rest the above contention. 3. Adv.Jeswin.P.Varghese, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has contended that the 2[nd] revision petitioner after accepting Rs.1,25,000/- + Rs.50,000/- (being the cost of gold chain of the mother) and agreeing to utilise the interest accrued on making a fixed deposit of that amount, towards maintenance of the 1[st] revision petitioner cannot now turn round and raise a claim before the Family Court seeking to fix the monthly maintenance reasonably in favour of the minor child. According to him, the revision petitioner would be unlawfully enriched on allowing the M.C in her favour and issuing a direction to the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance fixed by it. It is urged by the learned counsel **RPFC.No.375/2019** ## **4** that it undoubtedly would prejudice the respondent and the Family Court is justified in dismissing the M.C, thereby disallowing the claim for maintenance. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent had submitted before the Family Court that a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- was deposited in fixed deposit in the name of the 1[st] revision petitioner on 09.05.2017 following execution of Ext.P4 on 20.07.2016. According to him, as on date of filing of the M.C on 21.07.2017, the deposit was there in favour of the 1[st] revision petitioner. 5. It is pertinent to note from the impugned order that the M.C was dismissed on the basis of Ext.P4 which incorporates that Rs.1,25,000/- was agreed by the respondent to be given to the 2[nd] revision petitioner as a condition for withdrawing from prosecuting O.P. No.07/2014, a petition seeking decrees for restitution of conjugal rights and divorce on mutual consent. It was agreed that the 2[nd] revision petitioner shall receive the amount in full and final settlement of all their differences and that the amount shall be fixed deposit in a bank and the 2[nd] revision petitioner shall withdraw interest accrued on the deposited sum. **RPFC.No.375/2019** **5** 6. As stipulated in the agreement, a sum equivalent to the market price of a gold chain of 2 sovereigns given by the respondent to the 2[nd] petitioner at the time of marriage, was also agreed to be utilised for the future prospects of the 1[st] revision petitioner. 7. The relevant part of the agreement where the above terms are recited is extracted hereunder for easy reference: "വവിവവാഹബനന്ധം വവർപപെടുത്തുവമവാൾ ഒനവാന്ധം നമർകവാരവിക്കുണവാകുന നഷ്ടതവിവലേക്കുന്ധം ഭവാവവിജജീവവിത ചവിലേവവിവലേക്കുമവായവി രണവാന്ധം നമർകവാരൻ (1,25000/- ഒരുലേക്ഷതവി ഇരുപെതയവായവിരന്ധം രൂപെ നൽകവാൻ സമ്മതവിക് യന്ധം പ്രസ് സന്ധംഖഖ വയനവാടട് കുടുന്ധംബ വകവാടതവിയവിൽ വകസട് അനവിമ വവിചവാരണകട് വരുന ദവിവസന്ധം രണവാന്ധം നമർകവാരൻ മദഖസ്ഥൻമവാപര ഏൽപവിക്കുനതന്ധം പതളവിവട് പകവാടുതവശേഷന്ധം ഒനവാന്ധംനമർകവാരവി സന്ധംഖഖ കകപറവി രശേജീതവി നൽകണതമവാണട്. ഒനന്ധം രണന്ധം നമർകവാരുപട കമനർകുടവികട് പ്രവാഥമവിക ചവിലേവവിവലേകവായവി (1,25000/ഒരുലേക്ഷതവി ഇരുപെതയവായവിരന്ധം രൂപെ രണവാന്ധം നമർകവാരൻ രക്ഷവിതവാവന്ധം മവാതവാവമവായ ഒനവാന്ധം നമർകവാരവികട് നൽകുനതന്ധം ആയതവിവലേകട് അഡഡവാൻസവായവി 10,000/- പെതവിനവായവിരന്ധം രൂപെ ഇവന തജീയതവികട് ഒനവാന്ധംനമർകവാരവി കകപറവിയവിട്ടുള്ളതന്ധം ബവാകവി സന്ധംഖഖ 2017 )0 പഫെബ്രുവരവി 28- തജീയതവികകന്ധം നൽകുനതമവാണട്. വവിവവാഹവമവാചന **RPFC.No.375/2019** **6** ഹർജവി ഒനന്ധം രണന്ധം നമർകവാർ ഇവന ദവിവസന്ധം ഒപട് വചട് വകവാലേതട് നൽകവി വബവാധവിപവിക്കുനതമവാകുന”. ## The agreement recites further: "ഒനവാന്ധം കക്ഷവി ഭവാവവിയവിൽ ജജീവവിതചവിലേവട് ലേഭവികവാവനവാ സഡതവകവാശേന്ധം ഉനയവികവാവനവാ നഷ്ടപെരവിഹവാരന്ധം ലേഭവികവാവനവാ വല വപെവാലേജീസട് വകസട് വബവാധവിപവികവാവനവാ പെവാടവിലവാതതന്ധം ടവി സന്ധംഖഖ ഫുൾ ആനട് കഫെനൽ പസറവിൽപമൻറട് ആയവി ഒനവാന്ധംനമർകവാരവി അന്ധംഗജീകരവിക്കുനതന്ധം കുടവികട് നൽകുന സന്ധംഖഖ ബവാങവിൽ സ്ഥവിരനവിവക്ഷപെന്ധം ആവകണതന്ധം ആയതവിപന പെലേവിശേ സന്ധംഖഖ ഒനവാന്ധം നമർകവാരവികട് പെവിൻവലേവികവാവനതമവാകുന. ഒനവാന്ധം കക്ഷവികട് വവിവവാഹസമയന്ധം നൽകവിയ രണ പെവൻ തൂകന്ധം വരുന സഡർണ്ണതവാലേവിമവാലേ കുടവിക്കുള്ള ഭവാവവിസന്ധംമവാദഖമവായവി കുടവിയപട വപെരവിൽ ഇനപത മവാർകറട് വവിലേകട് തത്തുലേഖമവായ സന്ധംഖഖ ഒനവാന്ധം കക്ഷവി നൽവകണതമവാണട്. തവാലേവി ഒനവാന്ധം നമർകവാരവി രണവാന്ധം നമർകവാരനട് ഇവന ദവിവസന്ധം തവിരവിപക നൽകവിയവിരവിക്കുനതമവാണട്.” 8. The Family Court has observed in the backdrop of the above extract that, a wife, child or parent would only be entitled to get monthly maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. when a person in his capacity as husband, father or son as the case may be neglected or refused to maintain them and in the **RPFC.No.375/2019** **7** case on hand, since the respondent has paid Rs.1,70,000/and it stands in fixed deposit in the name of the 1[st] revision petitioner, with liberty being reserved to the 2[nd] revision petitioner to withdraw interest therefrom for meeting the expenses of the latter, it cannot be said that there was neglect or refusal of the respondent to pay monthly maintenance to the 1[st] revision petitioner and therefore, the latter is disentitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 9. In **Vikraman Nair** supra, a Division Bench of this Court has held: “22. When an agreement is entered into by the wife and the husband, as a part of compromise filed in the court or otherwise, whereby the wife relinquishes or waives the right to claim maintenance in future from the husband, for herself or for the minor children, such an agreement is opposed to public policy and it does not preclude her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 10. In the case on hand the 2[nd] revision petitioner by agreeing to accept the offer of the respondent to pay Rs.1,25,000/- for the maintenance of the 1[st] revision petitioner had in effect agreed not to raise any claim for **RPFC.No.375/2019** ## **8** share in the ancestral properties, compensation or maintenance before the police in future. According to the respondent, Rs.1,70,000/- stands in deposit in favour of the 1[st] revision petitioner and the 2[nd] revision petitioner had not raised any dispute against. 12. Section 125 was incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure to achieve the aim of saving a wife, child, legitimate or illegitimate and parents who have been neglected by a person in his capacity respectively as husband, father or son as the case may be, from living in a state of destitution and vagrancy. Or in otherwords it reminds a husband, father or son that in whatever capacity he may be, cannot evade from his obligation to maintain his wife, children and parents. Payment of a just and reasonable sum monthly is that contemplated by the provision and the court is empowered to fix the quantum on being convinced that any of them are unable to maintain their own. An allowance is awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C as monthly maintenance not for a limited period but for a period for which wife or other dependents of the husband are neglected by him and **RPFC.No.375/2019** **9** therefore live in destitution. A deserted destitute wife, child or parents had the entitlement to get a reasonable sum fixed by the Family Court as monthly maintenance having due regard to the monthly income, status in society and other relevant aspects relating to the husband. It is a statutorily conferred right. 13. In the case on hand, a valuable right of the minor child has been waived or relinquished by the 2[nd] revision petitioner/mother by accepting Rs.1,70,000/- deposited by the respondent in the 1[st] revision petitioner's favour. 14. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is apposite consideration in the context and therefore is extracted : “ **23. What considerations and objects are lawful and what not.** - The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unlessit is forbidden by law; or is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.” **RPFC.No.375/2019** ## **10** 15. It provides that a contract, forbidden by law or if it would have the impact of defeating any provisions of law or if fraudulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another or if regarded by the court as immoral or opposed to public policy, is unlawful and therefore is void. In the case on hand, by accepting the lumpsum amount paid, the mother of the minor girl had relinquished her right to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The mother as next friend of the minor has also relinquished her statutory entitlement to get maintenance from her father, who had deserted her. 16. Undoubtedly, the relinquishment of a statutory right is opposed to public policy and therefore, is void. The Family Court ought not to have declined the claim of the minor girl for maintenance for the reason. The impugned order, by which the claim of the 1[st ] revision petitioner was declined by the Family Court and her application seeking maintenance was dismissed by the court, deserves to be set aside for the reasons stated above. **RPFC.No.375/2019** **11** In the result, revision stands allowed and the impugned order dismissing the maintenance case is set aside. The M.C was directed to be considered afresh by Family Court, Kalpetta and disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties shall appear before the Family Court on 27.01.2021. The parties shall co-operate with the Family Court in its venture to dispose of the M.C. within the time frame. The interest accrued on the sum stands in fixed deposit in the name of the minor child shall be adjusted in the amount found payable as maintenance by the fresh order that will be passed by the Family Court in the M.C. The Family Court shall see that the M.C shall be reconsidered and disposed of within the period of time fixed by this Court. Sd/- **MARY JOSEPH JUDGE** NAB/JJ