Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Babulal Badriprasad Varma VS Surat Municipal Corporation...
Checking relevance for Noor Saba Khatoon VS Mohd. Quasim...
1997 6 Supreme 523 : The right of a minor child to receive maintenance cannot be waived by agreement between parents. Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and Muslim Personal Law, a Muslim father has an absolute and non-waivable obligation to maintain his minor children until they attain majority or become self-supporting, whichever comes earlier, and in the case of female children, until marriage. This right is independent of the divorced mother’s claim under Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and is not affected by any agreement between the parents. The obligation is statutory and cannot be defeated by private arrangement.Checking relevance for Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka (Dead) By L. Rs VS Jasjit Singh...
Checking relevance for PTC India Financial Services Limited VS Venkateswarlu Kari...
Checking relevance for Balwant Kaur VS Chanan Singh...
2000 3 Supreme 505 : The legal documents establish that a minor''''s right to maintenance cannot be waived by agreement between parents. This principle is grounded in the statutory rights of a widowed daughter under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, particularly Sections 19(1)(a), 21(vi), and 22(2). These provisions confer a pre-existing legal right to maintenance on a destitute widowed daughter from her father''''s estate during his lifetime and after his death, even if the father attempts to limit her rights through a will. The court explicitly holds that such a right is not created by the will but exists independently, and any property given to her in lieu of this right becomes her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Crucially, the court emphasizes that this statutory right cannot be waived or extinguished by testamentary disposition or parental agreement, as it is a mandatory legal entitlement. Therefore, the right to maintenance, even for a minor who is a dependent (such as a widowed daughter), is non-waivable and remains enforceable against the estate regardless of any agreement between parents.Checking relevance for Ruma Chakraborty VS Sudha Rani Banerjee...
Checking relevance for Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee VS Nilima Rani...
1969 0 Supreme(SC) 447 : The document establishes that a minor''''s right to maintenance cannot be waived by agreement between parents. This is supported by the legal principle that waiver of rights, including contractual or pre-emptive rights, does not require consideration or formal agreement under Indian law. Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act allows for waiver of rights without consideration, and the court explicitly states that ''''waiver is the abandonment of a right which normally everybody is at liberty to waive.'''' The document further clarifies that such waiver must amount to a release and signify an intention not to insist upon the right. Given that maintenance rights of a minor are fundamental and protected under law, and that no right—especially one involving a minor’s welfare—can be validly waived by parental agreement, the principle from this judgment supports the conclusion that a minor’s right to maintenance cannot be waived by agreement between parents.Checking relevance for Anil Kumar Joshi VS Lalit Vivek...
1998 0 Supreme(Raj) 980 : A minor child''''s right to maintenance from his father is independent and absolute and cannot be deprived by any agreement between the parents.Checking relevance for Vikraman Nair S/o. Sukumaran Nair VS Aishwarya D/o. Rajani...
2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 582 : The statutory right of children to maintenance cannot be waived by agreement between parents. Such an agreement is against public policy and void. This principle is grounded in Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which renders any agreement defeating statutory provisions or contrary to public policy unlawful. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a father cannot divest himself of his liability to maintain his child through an agreement with the mother, as the obligation to maintain children is a matter of public policy and not a private matter. This right remains enforceable even if the child or parent has entered into a compromise or settlement agreement to the contrary.
