A wife filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws under Section 498-A and 406 IPC....husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lacs to his wife...... agreed to take divorce by mutual consent...there was a statutory right given to her to claim maintenance.... Decide...

Question: A wife filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. In those proceedings, a compromise was arrived at as per which the husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lacs to his wife in full and final settlement of her claims towards stridhan, dowry, etc.
Parties also agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. The wife also agreed in the said compromise that she will not claim any maintenance from her husband. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was obtained by the parties. The husband also made a payment of Rs. 25 lacs. Thereafter, the wife filed a petition for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956.
The husband took the plea that the wife was precluded from filing such a petition in view of the settlement between the parties. The contention of the wife was that there was a statutory right given to her to claim maintenance and the agreement in question was against the public policy. How will you decide the issue? [DJS 2007]

Find the answer to the mains question of the Law of Contract only on Legal Bites. [A wife filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws under Section 498-A and 406 IPC....husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lacs to his wife...... agreed to take divorce by mutual consent...there was a statutory right given to her to claim maintenance.... Decide...]

Answer

Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act provides:

“Every agreement by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void to that extent.”

The underlying principle is that no person can exclude himself by contract from the protection of courts in enforcing it.

Absolute restriction on the right to enforce contract rights is void. However partial restraints are valid. The bar operates in cases where a party is restricted from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract; it will not apply to cases of wrongs or torts; or to decrees.

The agreements have been void as in restraint of legal proceedings, where a clause in a deed creating a right of maintenance was inserted that no suit for the recovery of arrears of maintenance of more than one month could be filed as held in Saroj Bandhu Bhaduri v. Jnanada Sundari Debya AIR 1932 Cal 720.

Moreover, it is also well settled that any contract which is opposed to public policy is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the same cannot be enforced in a Court of law. It is also laid down by the Apex Court that the divorcee's wife, who has settled the matter with the husband for maintenance amount for a lifetime, cannot waive the right given under the provision of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A wife who is entitled to maintenance can give up her right in consideration of a lump sum payment, but the surrender of the right to claim revision of the amount in the context of rising prices would be opposed to public policy. [Muniammal v. Raja, AIR 1978 Mad 103]

Giving effect to an agreement which overrides Section 125 CrPC would be tantamount to not only giving recognition to something which is opposed to public policy but would also amount to negation of the statutory provisions. The court in Geeta Satish Gokarna v. Satish Shankerrao Gokarna, AIR 2004 Bom 345 said that public policy can broadly be equated with policy of law. A marriage was dissolved on consent terms, one of which was that the wife would not claim alimony or maintenance. It was held that such consent terms could not prevent the court from granting maintenance on the application of the wife made subsequently. Such rights are the larger parts of the right to life. It is against public policy to snatch them.

The right to claim maintenance is considered a legal and statutory entitlement, and any agreement attempting to waive or limit such a right may not be upheld by the courts. Therefore, the wife may proceed with her petition for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956