LexNAGENDRAPPA NATIKAR versus NEELAMMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2013] 2 S.C.R. 426 NAGENDRAPPA NATIKAR v. NEELAMMA (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11800 of 2013) MARCH 15, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956: c s.18 - Suit claiming maintenance by wife - Held: Is maintainable inspite the compromise reached between the parties, under 0. 23, r. 3 CPC and an order u/s 125 CrPC based thereon granting permanent alimony - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.125 - Code of Civil Procedure, 0 1908 - 0. 23, r.23 - Contract Act, 1872 - s.25. In the instant petition filed by the husband, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether a compromise entered into by husband and wife under 0. 23, r. 3 CPC, agreeing for a consolidated amount E towards permanent alimony, thereby giving up any future claim for maintenance, accepted by the court in a proceeding uls 125 CrPC, would preclude the wife from claiming maintenance in a suit filed uls 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. F Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 Any order passed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife uls 18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and G Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. Section 125 is not intended to provide for a full and final H 426 NAGENDRAPPA NATIKAR v. NEELAMMA 427 determination of the status and personal rights of parties, A which is in the nature of a civil proceeding; and the order made u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is tentative and is subject to final determination of the rights in a civil court. [para 10-11) [431-B-D-E] 1.2 Section 25 of the Contract Act provides that any 8 agreement which is opposed to public policy is not enforceable in a court of law and such an agreement is void, since the object is unlawful. [para 11) [431-D-E] 1.3 The Family Court and the High Court have rightly c held that the suit u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is perfectly maintainable, in spite of the compromise reached between the parties under 0. 23. r. 3 C.P.C. [para 9) [431-A-B] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. D 11800 of 2013. From the Judgment & Order dated 28.03.2011 of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in MFA No. 31979 of 2010. Raja Venkatappa Naik, Raja Raghavendra Naik, S.K. Tandon, R.K. Gupta, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Petitioner. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. The question that is raised for consideration in this case E F is whether a compromise entered into by husband and wife under Order XX.Ill Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), G agreeing for a consolidated amount towards permanent alimony, thereby giving up any future claim for maintenance, accepted by the Court in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), would preclude the wife from claiming maintenance in a suit filed under Section 18 H 428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 2 S.C.R. A of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short "the Act'). 3. The marriage between the petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife) took place on 24.5.1987. Alleging that the B petitioner is not maintaining his wife, respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance before the 1st Additional JMFC at Gulbarga, being Misc. Case No. 234of1992. While the matter was pending, an application was preferred by the parties under Order XXlll Rule 3 CPC on C 3.9.1994 stating that the parties had arrived at a compromise, by which the respondent had agreed to receive an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards permanent alimony and that she would not make any claim for maintenance in future or enhancement of maintenance. Consent letter dated 30.3.1990, which is in Kannada, the English translation of the same reads as follow: D F G H "Consent letter: I, Neelamma W/o Nagendra Natikar, Age 23 years, · R/o Old Shahabad, do hereby execute this consent letter in favour of my husband Nagendra Natikar with free will and consent without coercion and misrepresentation. After my marriage with Nagendra Natikar, I could not lead marital life happy with my husband due to my ill health as prior to my marriage I was suffering f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.