Passing the judgement, Justice M K Mithal set aside the order of family court at Kanpur of January 18, 2005 in which the application of Manorama, seeking maintenance from her former spouse, was rejected on the ground that they had reached a compromise in the civil suit by which the wife had accepted a lumpsum amount and agreed not to claim any maintenance in future.

The court also turned down the husband’s plea that Manorama be debarred from claiming maintenance on the ground that she had, at the time of granting of divorce by mutual consent, agreed not to claim maintenance.

“The right to claim maintenance under section 125 of the criminal procedure code is a matter of public policy and not of an individual. In such circumstances, the right to claim maintenance cannot be waived by mutual agreement,” the court observed.