IMPORTANT POINTS:
• The financial capacity of the father has to be taken into consideration in determining the amount which the daughters are entitled to get from him. His means and income would be relevant.
• A contract which has a tendency to injure public interests or public welfare is one against public policy.
• A statutory right which has been conferred on a person under public policy cannot be waived by the said person by an agreement.
• Whether a compromise entered into by husband and wife under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, agreeing for a consolidated amount towards permanent alimony, thereby giving up future claim for maintenance, accepted by the court in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would preclude the wife from claiming maintenance in a suit filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Apex Court held that the suit under Section 18 of the Act is perfectly maintainable, inspite of the compromise reached between the parties under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and accepted by the court.
• The relinquishment of the right to claim maintenance by the wife in a joint petition for divorce will not prevent her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Attingal in O.P. No. 582/2013.

2. The appellant was the father of the first and the second respondents and the husband of the third respondent. He died during the pendency of the appeal. His legal representative, his second wife, has been impleaded as additional second appellant in the appeal.

3. The petitioners in O.P.No.582/2013, who are the first and the second respondents in the appeal, shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the daughters'. The respondents in O.P. No. 582/2013 shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the father' and 'the mother'.

4. The minor daughters filed O.P.No.582/2013 against their parents claiming Rs.1,17,000/- towards arrears of past maintenance. They also claimed Rs.4,500/- each per month from the parents towards future maintenance. The daughters also claimed Rs.15,00,000/- each towards their marriage expenses.

5. At the time of filing of the original petition by the daughters, their parents had obtained a decree of divorce and they had remarried.

6. The father filed counter statement in the case raising mainly the following contentions. He had instituted O.P.No.922/2005 against his wife, the mother of the petitioners, for granting a decree of divorce. She had filed M.C.No.125/2006 against him claiming maintenance for herself and also for the minor daughters. She had also filed O.P. No. 1067/2005 against him for return of gold ornaments and money. Due to the intervention of mediators, the disputes between them were settled. As a part of the compromise entered into between the parties, he executed settlement deed No.2466/2008 in favour of the daughters in respect of 12 cents of property with a building therein. Thereafter, he and the mother of the petitioners filed a joint petition for divorce as O.P. No. 1239/2008 and it was allowed by the court. The daughters and their mother had agreed that they will not claim any future maintenance from him. The marriage expenses of the daughters could be met by selling the property and the building gifted to them by him. He is working abroad as a driver and his monthly salary is only Rs.40,000/-. He had taken a loan from the bank and he had to pay Rs.23,000/- per month towards repayment of loan. As he has executed settlement deed in respect of the property in favour of the daughters, he is not liable to maintain them.

7. The mother of the minor daughters filed a statement supporting their claim against the father.

8. The original petition was filed by the daughters through their maternal grandmother as the next friend. During the pendency of the original petition, the daughters attained majority and the next friend was discharged.

9. During the trial of the case, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked on the side of the daughters. CPW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B5 documents were marked on the side of the father. The mother got herself examined as CPW2.

10. The Family Court found that inspite of the compromise entered into between the father and the mother in the earlier cases and inspite of the execution of the settlement deed by the father in favour of the daughters, he was bound to maintain them. The Family Court granted a decree in favour of the daughters as follows:-

“a. The 1st respondent (father) is directed to pay Rs.36,000/- (thirty six thousand) each as past maintenance to each of the petitioners with interest @ 6% per annum.

b. The 1st respondent (father) is also directed to pay future maintenance to the petitioners @ Rs.2500/- (two thousand five hundred) each from the date they attained majority until the date of their marriage.

c. The 1st respondent (father) is directed to pay Rs.5 lakhs (five) each towards the marriage expenses of each of the petitioners.

d. Petitioners are allowed to recover the above amounts from the 1st respondent and his assets with a charge on the petition schedule property.”

The appeal was filed by the fath