ABUBACKER Vs. KATHEESA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioners divorced wife had filed a petition before the Munsiff-Magistrate of Quilandy claiming maintenance for her child aged one year. Marriage and the paternity of the child were admitted. He contended that there was an agreement to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3/-, that he had paid the maintenance at the rate till 30-1-60 on which date there was a compromise and a lump sum of Rs. 500/- was paid towards maintenance charges of the child till it attained majority and that he is not bound to pay anything more. The learned Munsiff-Magistrate found that the compromise is not binding and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. The view taken by the Magistrate is correct.

(2.) Even assuming that the agreement set up is true and that Rs. 500 was actually paid (for which there is no independent evidence) such an agreement between the father and the mother that on payment of a lump sum the father need not pay any further maintenance is not binding on the child. Obligation to maintain the child is a statutory obligation and the parties cannot contract themselves out of it. The father cannot divest himself of his liability to maintain his child by an agreement with his wife.

(3.) This was the view taken in Maung Tin U v. Ma Hla Kyi (AIR 1937 Rangoon 246) where it was held:-