IMPORTANT POINT
Waiver of maintenance rights does not negate a wife's claim for maintenance under the D.V Act, reaffirming statutory obligations of the husband.

ORDER :

This Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (`BNSS’ for short) by the respondent in C.M.P No.23/2021 in M.C.1/2021 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IV (Mobile), Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.1/2023 dated 11.04.2024 arising out of C.M.P.No.23/2021 in M.C.1/2021. The petitioner in the above C.M.P and M.C is the respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/appellant/respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/respondent/petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the order impugned along with decisions placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Parties in this Revision Petition are referred as to their status before the trial court as `petitioner’ and `respondent’, hereafter.

4. The petitioner approached trial court under Section 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (`D.V Act’ for short hereafter) seeking various reliefs. Along with the petition, CMP.No.23/2021 also was filed under Section 23 of the D.V Act seeking interim maintenance. According to the petitioner, marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court in the year 2018. According to her, the petitioner was gifted with 301 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents, as demanded by the respondent and an amount of Rs.10 lakh was also entrusted to the 1^st respondent for the welfare of the petitioner. Again the respondent demanded for more ornaments and money and done acts of domestic violence. Consequently, the marriage was dissolved. According to the petitioner, she doesn’t have any means for maintenance and the respondent is a Pilot by profession and he is getting more than Rs.15 lakh per month as salary from his job. Therefore, he is bound to pay maintenance to the petitioner and on this premise interim maintenance was sought for.

5. The 1^st respondent resisted the petition by filing detailed objection and the crux of the objection is that the petitioner had completely waived her right to maintenance from the respondent in view of Annexure A2 agreement entered into between them. Therefore legally she is not entitled to get maintenance as contended. Further, the respondent raised a contention that the petitioner has been running a Yoga Centre and she has been getting an average income of Rs.2 lakh per month. Therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance, as she could maintain herself.

6. The trial court disbelieved the income alleged to be derived by the petitioner for want of materials. In consideration of the fact that the respondent has been doing the job of a Pilot and admittedly he has been receiving Rs.8,35,000/- per month as gross income, as can be seen from his own disclosure in the statement showing his assets and liabilities, the trial court granted Rs.30,000/- as interim maintenance per month to the petitioner.

7. Even though the said order was challenged in appeal, as per judgment dated 11.04.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal concurring the finding of the trial court. Now the concurrent verdicts are under challenge before this Court.

8. While assailing the concurrent verdicts, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that in this matter, the parties, after birth of one child, decided to divorce their marriage and accordingly an agreement had been entered into between them as on 28.10.2017 executed before a Notary Public and copy of the same is Annexure A2. As per Annexure A2, it has been agreed that the second party (petitioner in the M.C) had amicably settled all disputes towards dowry, permanent alimony and maintenance etc. and she would not claim any more against the same, as she had collected all her belongings. Further, properties also shared between them. In view of clause No