Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
M.G. Priyadarsini, J.
G. Kavitha and Anr. – Appellants
versus
G. Madhusudhan Rao – Respondent
A.S.No.4500 of 2004
Decided on 14.7.2022
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Sections 18 , 20 –Maintenance – Rejection of claim due to matrimonial settlement deed – Entitlement– Trial court is not justified in comparing admitted signature of plaintiff No.1 on vakalat, and on alleged agreement, which has not even been marked, and which has been specifically denied by plaintiff No.1 – Plaintiff No.1 is wife of defendant and no material is brought before court that any petition for divorce is pending adjudication between parties – Plaintiff No.1 is living separately, and has no independent source of income – Mere encashing of cheque, does not disentitle her from claiming monthly maintenance and this circumstance also cannot be considered to hold that parties have entered into agreement –Even if wife executes agreement relinquishing her right to receive any maintenance in future, that would be contrary to public policy and unenforceable – She would be entitled to seek for maintenance, if she is unable to maintain herself – Husband failed to prove alleged agreement – Wife is living separately with girl child, and is unable to maintain herself –Husband is a software professional working at Singapor at time of marriage –When it is fact that he is a software professional, it is clear that he is sufficiently qualified, and that when he is pleading that he is unemployed, he has to prove same, which he failed – Defendant having sufficient means, failed to maintain plaintiffs –Having regard to cost of living and inflation, and also having regard to fact that defendant is software professional, maintenance amount claimed by plaintiffs is reasonable and same requires to be granted –Plaintiff No.1 is granted maintenance at rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from date of filing of suit, and 2nd plaintiff is also granted maintenance at rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from date of filing of suit. [Paras 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32]
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
The 1st appellant is the wife of the respondent, and the 2nd appellant is their daughter.
2. The appellants as plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.108 of 2003 against the respondent – defendant, on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming past maintenance of Rs.2,55,000/-, and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month i.e., Rs.10,000/- to the first plaintiff and Rs.5,000/- per month to the second plaintiff.
3. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2004 rejected the claim of the 1st plaintiff for maintenance by relying on the matrimonial settlement deed dated 28.12.2002, stated to have been executed between the 1st plaintiff/wife and the defendant/husband, and in respect of 2nd plaintiff/daughter, awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month towards maintenance, payable by the defendant from the date of filing of the suit.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court in rejecting the claim of the 1st plaintiff for maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, and in awarding only an amount of Rs.4,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance to the 2nd plaintiff, the present appeal is filed.
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit.
6. The case of the 1st plaintiff is that her marriage with the defendant took place on 18.11.2011 in Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- along with other presentations to the defendant and that since beginning, the defendant has been harassing her for additional dowry, and in that process necked her out from the matrimonial house on 16.04.2022, when she was pregnant, and that she gave birth to the 2nd plaintiff on 02.09.2002, and as the defendant has neglected her and refused to maintain her, and also as she has no independent source of income and that the defendant is earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month, by working as Consultant in Computer Software Industry at Singapoor, filed the present suit for past and future maintenance against the defendant, as noted above.
7. The defendant filed counter affidavit and denied the allegations of harassment and demand of additional dowry made against him in the plaint, and stated that it is the plaintiff No.1, and his family members behaved rudely with him. His case is that the 1st plaintiff informed him several times that she was forced by her parents to marry him, and that she wanted to get separated from him. That when the 1st plaintiff filed a false criminal case in C.C.No.302 of 2003 for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC, there was a matrimonial settlement between the parties, and a deed was executed on 28.12.2002. As per the said deed, he and the 1st plaintiff decided to take divorce by consent and that he agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the 1st plaintiff towards full and final settlement, and that out of the said amount, he paid Rs.1,00,000/-, vide cheque No.059626 on 28.12.2002, as part payment, and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of filing divorce petition by consent, and on obtaining divorce, but contrary to such settlement, the 1st plaintiff filed the present suit with false allegations. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the suit.
8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for trial?
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for maintenance against the defendant and if so, at what rate?
2. To what relief?
9. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and the father of P.W.1, was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the plaintiffs Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked.
10. On behalf of the defendant, no evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced.
11. The trial court, believing the matrimonial settlement dated 28.12.2002 pleaded by the defendant, and also considering the fact of encashment o
SupremeToday
Maintenance – Agreement, by which wife relinquishes her right to receive maintenance any time in future, is contrary to public policy and consequently unenforceable.
Point of law: “An agreement, by which wife relinquishes her right to receive maintenance any time in future, is contrary to public policy and consequently unenforceable.”
Point of Law : It is settled that maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wife and children for their financial support; so as to prevent th....
Maintenance awarded under Section 125 should ensure the dependent spouse's comfort, considering the standard of living and financial capacity of the spouse obliged to pay.
Delay in filing a maintenance application does not negate entitlement to maintenance; consent to separate was misinterpreted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of actual earnings, standard of living, and liabilities in determining the maintenance amount under the Protection of Women from Dom....
Maintenance awarded from the date of application must be reasonable and realistic. Applying a uniform, static amount retrospectively over several years is inequitable if the respondent's income fluct....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
