Site icon Shonee Kapoor

Kerala High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance Despite Marital Settlement Agreement – A Setback for Men’s Rights

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

Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner (Husband):

Respondent (Ex-Wife):

Court’s Observation
Justice A. Badharudeen observed:

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

Exit mobile version