Kerala High Court: Wife’s Legal Right to Maintenance Cannot Be Waived by Private Agreement

In a notable judgment, the Kerala High Court clarified that a wife’s right to receive maintenance under the law is a statutory entitlement and cannot be given up through any private agreement with her husband.

Justice A. Badharudeen, while hearing the case Laju Cherian v. Tara Laju & State of Kerala, ruled that any such agreement—where a woman gives up her right to maintenance—is against public policy and has no legal effect.

Background of the Case

The case arose when a man challenged a trial court’s order directing him to pay ₹30,000 as interim maintenance to his former wife. He argued that the couple had already signed a mutual agreement settling all issues, including dowry, alimony, and maintenance. According to him, this agreement meant that she had waived her right to further maintenance.

However, the High Court found that the agreement clearly stated no money had been paid for maintenance and that the wife had waived her claim. The Court ruled that such a waiver is not valid under the law, as it goes against well-established legal principles and the spirit of public policy.

Key Legal Reasoning

Justice Badharudeen referred to several decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts to support the ruling. He emphasized that:

• A woman cannot waive her right to future maintenance, whether the waiver is part of a private agreement or even included in a compromise before a court.
• Maintenance laws are in place to protect women, and agreements that undermine these rights are unenforceable.

The Court also noted that the woman had earlier filed a complaint of domestic violence and dowry harassment, before the divorce. It referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, which held that even a divorced woman can claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if she has faced abuse during the marriage.

Income Dispute

The woman claimed her former husband, a commercial pilot, earned ₹15 lakh per month, while he declared an income of ₹8.35 lakh per month. He also claimed that she was financially independent and earned ₹2 lakh per month from her yoga studio.

But the High Court emphasized that since the husband’s substantial income was undisputed and the wife’s earnings had not been clearly established, the interim maintenance order was justified. The Court added that such financial claims would be assessed more thoroughly during the trial.

Final Observations

This ruling underscores a vital principle: maintenance is a legal right that ensures a woman’s financial stability after separation or divorce. The Court made it clear that private agreements cannot override the law, especially when they compromise protections meant to safeguard women’s welfare.