NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. MAYA ALIAS NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 22.5.2002 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Regular Case No. 448/2001, whereby the trial Court, on an application filed by the non- petitioner under Section 125 of the Code, granted monthly allowance of maintenance @ 1,000/- per month in favour of the non-petitioner and against the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the order impugned granting monthly allowance of maintenance, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned, as also the record of the trial Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the non-petitioner submits that any agreement opposed to public policy cannot be enforced and the non-petitioner cannot be precluded to claim the allowance of maintenance if by evidence she establishes that the petitioner despite having sufficient means, failed to maintain and neglected her, which, according to the learned counsel for the non-petitioner, has been established by her. He has relied on a decision of this Court in Lachhi Ram v. Smt. Shanta and Anr, S.B. Criminal Revision No. 334/2002 decided on 10.3.2004, wherein this Court held that "the agreement Ex.P/1 does not speak of mutual divorce. There is no prohibition for claiming maintenance in future. The agreement Ex.P/1 only speaks to the effect that the said amount is paid to her for maintenance of their child. It is further stipulated that she will maintain the child and when he grows after five years, she will hand-over the child to her husband. Such an agreement is opposed to the public policy. There is statutory obligation on the petitioner to maintain his wife and minor child.