The statutory right to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be waived or relinquished by an agreement and any such attempt is void as it is opposed to public policy.

ORDER :

1. Order passed by Family Court, Nedumangad on 30.07.2016 in M.C. No. 90 of 2016 is under challenge in the revision on hand.

2. For the sake of clarity, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent and the petitioner in accordance with their status in the M.C. before the Family Court.

M.C. was filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner, who is the legally wedded wife of the respondent as per marriage solemnized on 29.09.2013 at Pothencode. She has been deserted and neglected to be maintained by the respondent from 12.09.2015 onwards. According to the petitioner, more dowry was demanded by the respondent and also threatened stating that she would be divorced if the demand for additional dowry is not met with. The respondent was alleged as having a salary of Rs. 30,000/- from his job as a Civil Police Officer and monthly earning of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the poultry and dairy farms conducted by him. Rs. 15,000/- was claimed as monthly maintenance.

3. In the objection filed by the respondent, the marriage and the status of the petitioner as wife was admitted. The claim for maintenance was alleged as not maintainable for the reason that it was barred by estoppel. According to him, the adamant attitude of the petitioner and inability of the respondent on account of that, to proceed with the marital relationship, settlement talks at the intervention of Jama Ath authorities and mediators failed and ultimately the marital relationship was terminated by pronouncing Talaq on 22.01.2016. Due intimation of Talaq was also given to the petitioner. Thereafter an agreement was allegedly entered between the petitioner and the respondent whereby all financial claims including claim for maintenance were settled on 22.01.2016. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from claiming monthly maintenance from the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was also contended that the petitioner after completing her D. Pharm, is working in a medical store at Pothencode Junction and earning Rs. 7,500/- monthly as salary. According to him, the claim of the petitioner for monthly maintenance is defeated for her ability to maintain herself. He seeks for dismissal of the petition.

4. In the M.C. evidence was adduced by both parties. On the petitioner's side, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and on the side of the respondent, CPW-1 to CPW-3 were examined. Exts.R1 to R3 were also marked.

5. The rival contentions were evaluated in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and the Family Court has found ultimately that the claim of the petitioner is meritorious. Accordingly, petition was allowed in part and the respondent was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the above order and seeking to set it aside, revision on hand is filed.

6. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent was that after sometime of the marriage, the marital relationship of the parties has been irretrievably broken and therefore the respondent had pronounced Talaq on 22.01.2016 with the consent of Jama Ath authorities and it was intimated to her. Consequent to that an agreement was also executed among the respondent and the petitioner, as Ext.R1. According to him, the entire financial claims including maintenance were settled and the terms and conditions were incorporated in Ext.R1. It was contended that the liabilities arising out of the matrimonial relationship, having been fully discharged by the respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to get monthly maintenance from the respondent and ought not to have raised a claim under Sub-Section (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

7. It is further contended by the learned counsel that though Ext.R1 was alleged as an agreement not properly executed by the petitioner, the execution was established as proper by the respondent by examining attestors thereto, before the Family Co