Telangana High Court Grants Maintenance to Wife and Daughter, Rejects Alleged Settlement Deed

In a judgment by the Telangana High Court, Justice M.G. Priyadarsini granted maintenance to a wife and her daughter while rejecting the validity of an alleged settlement deed presented by the husband. The case, involving a claim under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, has drawn attention due to its implications for spousal support and the enforceability of matrimonial agreements.

In the case of G. Kavitha and Another v. G. Madhusudhan Rao, the wife, represented by counsel Sri B. Nalinkumar, filed a suit seeking past and future maintenance against her husband. The trial court had previously rejected the wife's claim based on an alleged matrimonial settlement deed executed between the parties. However, the High Court found that the husband failed to prove the existence of the settlement deed, and the wife vehemently denied its validity.

Justice M.G. Priyadarsini emphasized that the mere en-cashing of a cheque by the wife did not disentitle her from claiming maintenance. The court held that an agreement in which a wife relinquishes her right to receive maintenance in the future is contrary to public policy and unenforceable. Therefore, the trial court's reliance on the alleged settlement deed as a basis for denying the wife's claim was deemed unjustified.

Considering the wife's inability to maintain herself and the husband's failure to prove unemployment, Justice M.G. Priyadarsini ruled in favor of the wife and daughter. The court granted the wife maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000 per month and increased the maintenance awarded to the daughter to Rs.5,000 per month. The maintenance was ordered to be paid from the date of filing the suit.

This judgment aligns with previous decisions that have upheld a wife's entitlement to maintenance when she is unable to support herself. The court's stance reinforces the principle that agreements relinquishing future maintenance rights are unenforceable and contrary to public policy.

Decided on: 14.07.2022

Kavitha and Another vs Madhusudhan Rao 

• Lawyer E- News Android Mobile App
• Latest Legal News

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/G-Kavitha-Telangana-HC-.pdf"]