Kerala High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance Despite

Summary

The Kerala High Court dismissed a husband’s revision petition challenging a ₹30,000 monthly interim maintenance order to his ex-wife under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Despite a 2017 settlement agreement waiving maintenance, the court ruled such waivers are against public policy, reinforcing women’s protections but raising concerns for men in divorce agreements.

Brief Facts of the Case

In Crl.R.P.No.1121/2024, a pilot husband challenged a ₹30,000 monthly interim maintenance order to his ex-wife, upheld by the Judicial Magistrate and Additional District Court. Divorced in 2018, the couple signed a 2017 agreement (Annexure A2) waiving the wife’s maintenance claims. The ex-wife sought relief under the DV Act, alleging domestic violence and no income, citing the husband’s ₹8,35,000 monthly salary. The husband claimed the agreement barred relief and alleged she earned ₹2 lakh monthly from a yoga centre.

Legal Provisions Involved in the Case

• Section 20, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Grants monetary relief, including maintenance.
• Section 23, DV Act: Allows interim maintenance pending final adjudication.
• Sections 438, 442, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Govern revision petitions.
• Section 125, CrPC: Supports husband’s maintenance obligation per case law.
• Precedents: Bhupinder Singh v. Daljit Kaur (1979), Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain (1979), Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori (2014) establish unenforceability of maintenance waivers and post-divorce DV Act liability.

Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner (Husband):

• The 2017 agreement (Annexure A2) waived maintenance claims, barring relief.
• The wife earned ₹2 lakh monthly from a yoga centre, negating maintenance need.
• Courts erred by ignoring the agreement.

Respondent (Ex-Wife):

• The agreement was disputed, allegedly created by the husband, and under litigation.
• Maintenance waivers are illegal, not overriding statutory rights.
• With no income, she deserved ₹30,000 monthly maintenance given the husband’s ₹8,35,000 salary.

Court’s Observation
Justice A. Badharudeen observed:

• Invalid Waiver: Bhupinder Singh v. Daljit Kaur and Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain hold maintenance waivers as against public policy, not barring DV Act or CrPC claims.
• Interim Maintenance: Per Rajnesh v. Neha, interim maintenance relies on prima facie financial assessment. The husband’s ₹8,35,000 salary was clear, but the wife’s alleged income lacked evidence.
• Post-Divorce Liability: Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori confirms DV Act maintenance rights persist post-divorce if domestic violence occurred.
• Reasonable Amount: ₹30,000 monthly was reasonable for the wife’s standard of living.
• Concurrent Findings: Trial and appellate courts’ decisions were sound, needing no interference.

Conclusion of the Judgment

The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the ₹30,000 monthly interim maintenance. The husband was ordered to clear dues within 30 days, with coercive measures allowed on default. The interim stay was vacated, and the order forwarded to the jurisdictional court.

Comments from the author of this website

This ruling hits men hard. Ignoring the 2017 maintenance waiver agreement, despite mutual consent, leaves men vulnerable to endless financial obligations. The husband was pressed to disprove the wife’s no-income claim, while his salary was spotlighted without factoring in his expenses. Post-divorce liability for past allegations feels unfair. Men should document their ex-spouse’s income and seek legal advice early to counter such challenges.

Final Thoughts

This judgment highlights the uphill battle men face in family courts, where legal protections for women can overshadow fairness. While the court’s focus on public policy aims to protect vulnerable spouses, it risks undermining mutual agreements, leaving men feeling trapped by unending liabilities. For men navigating divorce, this case is a wake-up call: arm yourself with evidence, stay proactive, and lean on men’s rights communities for strength. The system may feel stacked against you, but knowledge and preparation can level the playing field. Keep fighting—you’re not alone.

Read Complete Judgement Here