Kerala High Court: Wife Can Seek Maintenance Even After Earlier Settlement, If Circumstances Change

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has held that a woman who has earlier given up her right to maintenance through a mutual agreement can still ask for it later — but only if her circumstances have changed and she can no longer support herself. The case also discussed the rights of a minor child to claim maintenance under Christian personal law.

Background of the Case

A Christian woman and her minor child had filed a petition seeking ₹3,60,000 as maintenance arrears for the past three years and ₹5,000 per month for future maintenance. This was after a divorce from her husband. However, the Family Court rejected the request. It said the woman had already received ₹30,000 in a compromise agreement years ago and had given up her right to future maintenance. The Court also ruled that the claim on behalf of the child was not valid under the Divorce Act.

Court’s Findings

1. Wife’s Right to Claim Maintenance After Divorce

The Court referred to Section 37 of the Indian Divorce Act and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allow a divorced wife to claim alimony or maintenance. It stated that:

• There is no legal bar for a divorced wife to ask for maintenance later, even if the divorce was mutual.

• A joint petition for divorce is still considered as being "obtained by the wife" for the purposes of seeking alimony.

• A woman can approach the court again if she becomes unable to maintain herself, even after earlier receiving money in a settlement.

• 
  

2. Effect of the Compromise Agreement

The agreement was made in 2004, where the woman received ₹30,000 and agreed not to seek further maintenance. However, the Court observed:

• Such agreements do not completely block future claims for maintenance if the situation changes.

• The court must look into whether the amount given earlier is now inadequate.

• The husband claimed to have given up land, but the court found that the land was actually gifted to him by the wife’s parents at the time of marriage.

  
  

So, receiving ₹30,000 in 2004 does not stop the wife from making a fresh claim, especially if she genuinely cannot maintain herself now.

3. Child’s Right to Maintenance:

The Court clarified that under Sections 43 and 44 of the Divorce Act, courts can order maintenance for children — both during and after divorce proceedings. The earlier Family Court had wrongly said that the child could only approach a Magistrate under Section 125 CrPC.

Even though the child had now become an adult, the court said he was entitled to maintenance until he turned 18, and he could also claim a higher amount from the Family Court, not just ₹175 per month from the Magistrate Court.

4. Need for Fresh Hearing:

Both sides had new developments:

• The wife had filed a new maintenance petition.

• The husband claimed he was now very ill and had no income.

  
  

Given these updates, and the fact that the Family Court earlier misunderstood the law, the High Court decided to send the case back for a fresh hearing. Both sides were given a chance to present new evidence. The Family Court was directed to complete the case quickly, as the issue has been pending since 2012.

Conclusion:

This ruling by the Kerala High Court is important as it ensures that justice is not denied simply because of an earlier agreement. If someone’s situation changes, especially when they are struggling to survive, the courts can step in and help. It also confirms that children have a right to maintenance under Christian law, not just under general criminal law.

The Court has shown that fairness and human dignity must always guide decisions related to maintenance and alimony.