Tuesday, July 8, 2014

SC- Compromise is not a bar to file further cases for maintenance

                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 11800 OF 2013
                   [Arising out of C.C. No. 1297 of 2012]

Nagendrappa Natikar                                .. Petitioner
                                   Versus
Neelamma                                               .. Respondent
                               J U D G M E N T

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1.    Delay condoned.


2.    The question that is raised for consideration in this case is  whether
a compromise entered into by husband and wife under Order XXIII  Rule  3  of
the Code of Civil  Procedure  (CPC),  agreeing  for  a  consolidated  amount
towards  permanent  alimony,  thereby  giving  up  any  future   claim   for
maintenance, accepted by the Court in a proceeding under Section 125 of  the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), would preclude  the  wife  from  claiming
maintenance in a suit filed under Section  18  of  the  Hindu  Adoption  and
Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short “the Act’).

3.    The marriage between the petitioner (husband)  and  respondent  (wife)
took place on 24.5.1987.  Alleging that the petitioner  is  not  maintaining
his wife, respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC  for  grant
of maintenance before the 1st Additional JMFC at Gulbarga, being Misc.  Case
No. 234 of  1992.    While  the  matter  was  pending,  an  application  was
preferred by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC  on  3.9.1994  stating
that the parties had arrived at a compromise, by which  the  respondent  had
agreed to receive an amount of  Rs.8,000/-  towards  permanent  alimony  and
that she would not make any claim for maintenance in future  or  enhancement
of maintenance.  Consent letter dated 30.3.1990, which is  in  Kannada,  the
English translation of the same reads as follow:
       “Consent letter:
            I,  Neelamma  W/o  Nagendra  Natikar,  Age  23  years,  R/o  Old
       Shahabad, do hereby execute this  consent  letter  in  favour  of  my
       husband Nagendra Natikar with free will and consent without  coercion
       and misrepresentation.  After my marriage with  Nagendra  Natikar,  I
       could not lead marital life happy with  my  husband  due  to  my  ill
       health as prior  to  my  marriage  I  was  suffering  from  backache,
       Paralysis stroke to my left hand and left leg and was also  suffering
       from epilepsy (Fits disease) and therefore I have myself  decided  to
       withdraw from marital life.  I  have  given  my  consent  for  mutual
       divorce.  I have no objection if my  husband  would  contract  second
       marriage with someone.  Prior to my marriage  I  was  suffering  from
       chronic disease.  I had asked my father not to celebrate her marriage
       with anyone.   My  father  forcibly  got  marriage  with  Nagendrappa
       Natikar.  Henceforth I will not make  any  further  claims  and  also
       forfeit my rights in future and I  will  not  claim  compensation  or
       maintenance or alimony.  I am satisfied with the payment of Rs.8000/-
       and I will not make any further claims against my husband.


            I have executed this consent letter in  favoaur  of  my  husband
       without any force of  anybody  and  free  from  misrepresentation  or
       coercion.   My father-mother or nay  other  family  members  have  no
       objection for executing this consent letter.


                                                      Signature of Executant


                                                                    Neelamma


                                                        (Signed in Kannada))


       Signature of witnesses:


    1.  Tippanna (signed in Kannada)


    2.  Devindrappa (signed in Kannada)
    3. Syed Zabiullah Sahab  (signed scribe)”



The Court, on the same day, passed the following order:
      “Parties both present.  Both parties and  advocates  files  compromise
      petition.  The contents of the compromise petition is  read  over  and
      explained to them.  They admit the execution of the same before court.
        Respondent paid Rs.8000/- (eight thousand) before court towards full
      satisfaction of the maintenance as per compromise recorded.   In  view
      of the compromise, petition dismissed.”

4.    Respondent wife then filed a Misc. Application no. 34 of  2003  under
Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Gulbarga for  cancellation  of
the earlier order and also  for  awarding  future  maintenance,  which  was
resisted by the petitioner stating that the parties had already  reached  a
compromise with regard to the claim for maintenance on 3.9.1994  and  hence
the application for cancellation of the earlier order is not  maintainable.
The Court accepted the plea of the husband and took  the  view  that  since
such an order was still in force and not set aside by a competent Court, it
would not be possible to entertain an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
 The application was, therefore, dismissed on 31.7.2006.

5.    We notice, while  the  application  under  Section  127  Cr.P.C.  was
pending, respondent wife filed O.S. No. 10 of 2005 before the Family Court,
Gulbarga under Section 18 of the Act claiming maintenance at  the  rate  of
Rs.2,000/- per month.  The claim was resisted  by  the  petitioner  husband
contending that, in view of the compromise reached between the  parties  in
Misc. Case No. 234 of 1992 filed under Section 125 CrPC,  respondent  could
not claim any monthly maintenance and hence the suit filed under Section 18
of the Act was not  maintainable.   The  question  of  maintainability  was
raised as a preliminary issue.  The Family Court held by  its  order  dated
15.9.2009 that the  compromise  entered  into  between  the  parties  in  a
proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would not be  bar  in  entertaining  a
suit under Section 18 of the Act.

6.    The suit was then finally heard on 30.9.2010  and  the  Family  Court
decreed the suit  holding  that  the  respondent  is  entitled  to  monthly
maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from the  defendant  husband  from  the
date of the filing of the suit.

7.    Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner took up the matter before the
High Court by filing an appeal, being M.F.A. No. 31979 of 2010,  which  was
dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated 28.3.2011, against  which
this SLP has been preferred.

8.     Shri  Raja  Venkatappa  Naik,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
petitioner, husband, submitted that suit filed under Section 18 of the  Act
is not maintainable, in view of the order  dated  3.9.1994,  accepting  the
consent terms and ordering a consolidated amount towards maintenance  under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.

9.    We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the  Family  Court
and confirmed by the High Court that the suit under Section 18 of  the  Act
is perfectly maintainable, in spite of the compromise reached  between  the
parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C. and accepted by the  Court  in  its
order dated 3.9.1994.

10.   Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a piece of social legislation  which  provides
for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance  to  a  wife  who  is
unable to maintain herself and her children.   Section 125 is not  intended
to provide for a full and final determination of the  status  and  personal
rights of parties, which is in the nature of a civil proceeding, though are
governed by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the order made under  Section
125 Cr.P.C. is tentative and is  subject  to  final  determination  of  the
rights in a civil court.

11.   Section 25 of the Contract Act provides that any agreement  which  is
opposed to public policy is not enforceable in a Court of Law and  such  an
agreement is void, since the object is unlawful.  Proceeding under  Section
125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy to
the wife and any order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.  by  compromise  or
otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to  a  wife  under  Section
18(2) of the Act.

12.   The above being the legal position, we find  no  error  in  the  view
taken by the Family Court, which has been affirmed by the High Court.   The
Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.



                                        …………………………………J.
                                        (K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN)






                                        …………………………………J.
                                        (DIPAK MISRA)


New Delhi,
March 15, 2013