A prior settlement regarding maintenance does not absolutely bar a subsequent claim for marriage expenses if a significant change in circumstances is demonstrated, as per Section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

J U D G M E N T

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the daughter against the father, seeking provision for marriage expenses, was dismissed by the Family Court. The daughter-petitioner is in appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the Original petition.

2. The petitioner was born to the respondent in his wedlock with Smt.Udayakumari, on 17.11.1995. Their marital tie was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The petitioner, on attaining the age of majority, has filed this Original Petition claiming ₹ 26 lakhs as provision for marriage, including value of gold ornaments and other expenses.

3. The respondent contended that the petitioner and her mother had filed OP 599/2011 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, seeking recovery of gold ornaments and for maintenance. As per Ext.B1, the parties arrived at a settlement. Therein, towards full and final settlement of all claims, provision was made for the maintenance of the petitioner and her mother. As per Ext.B2 order the original petition OP 599/2011 was disposed of accordingly. The entitlements of the petitioner having thus been settled, the present claim cannot be sustained, it was contended.

4. The Family Court upheld the defence and dismissed the Original Petition. We have heard learned counsel on either side.

5. The terms of settlement in OP 599/2011 (Ext.B1) reveal that the claim for maintenance of the mother was settled for an amount of ₹ 5.5 lakhs and the claim of the petitioner herein for an amount of ₹ 1.5 lakhs. The settlement was on 29.05.2012. The terms provided that the petitioner and her mother would not have any further claims against the respondent towards gold ornaments, money, assets or maintenance, and that it is a full and final settlement of the claims.

6. At the time when OP 599/2011 was filed, the petitioner herein was aged 13 years. She has filed the present original petition when she attained 18 years of age. When the settlement towards the claims of the petitioner was for an amount of ₹ 1.5 lakhs only and the petitioner was aged only 13 years at that time, it is difficult to comprehend that the settlement reckoned her marriage expenses also. Here we add a word of caution that we are not to be understood to have held that it was not included. Following the dictum laid down in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma (AIR 2013 SC 1541), this Court in Sheela George v. V. M. Alexander (2025 (4) KHC 93), held that even if there has been a settlement of the claims for maintenance, a further claim could be maintained if change in circumstances is demonstrated. Section 25 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act expressly provides for the same. The Family Court having not taken into consideration the above aspects, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has since been married. The date of marriage is not available. There is no evidence regarding the expenses incurred for the same.

8. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that an opportunity could be granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence on the maintainability of the Original Petition and also the quantum. We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the claim.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. OP 29/2014 on the files of the Family Court, Kottarakkara, will stand restored back to file. The Family Court shall try and dispose of the Original Petition afresh after affording opportunity to either side to adduce evidence. Parties to appe