Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 11800 OF 2013 [Arising out of C.C. No. 1297 of 2012]

Nagendrappa Natikar .. Petitioner

Versus

Neelamma     ..  

Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. The question that is raised for consideration in this case is  

whether a compromise entered into by husband and wife under  

Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 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

Page 2

2

Procedure  (CrPC),  would  preclude  the  wife  from  claiming  

maintenance  in  a  suit  filed  under  Section  18  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  

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.  

234 of 1992.   While the matter was pending, an application was  

preferred  by  the  parties  under  Order  XXIII  Rule  3  CPC  on  

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:

“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

Page 3

3

marriage I  was suffering from backache,  Paralysis  stroke to my left  hand and left  leg and was also  suffering from epilepsy (Fits disease) and therefore I  have myself decided to withdraw from marital life.  I  have given my consent for mutual divorce.  I have  no objection if my husband would contract second  marriage with someone.  Prior to my marriage I was  suffering  from  chronic  disease.   I  had  asked  my  father not to celebrate her marriage with anyone.  My father forcibly got marriage with Nagendrappa  Natikar.   Henceforth  I  will  not  make  any  further  claims and also forfeit my rights in future and I will  not claim compensation or maintenance or alimony.  I am satisfied with the payment of Rs.8000/- and I  will  not  make  any  further  claims  against  my  husband.

I have executed this consent letter in favoaur of  my husband without any force of anybody and free  from misrepresentation  or  coercion.    My  father- mother  or  nay  other  family  members  have  no  objection for executing this consent letter.

Signature of Executant

Neelamma

(Signed in Kannada))

Signature of witnesses:

1.  Tippanna (signed in Kannada)

2.  Devindrappa (signed in Kannada)

3. Syed Zabiullah Sahab  (signed scribe)”

The Court, on the same day, passed the following order:

“Parties both present.   Both parties and advocates  files  compromise  petition.   The  contents  of  the

Page 4

4

compromise petition is  read over and explained to  them.  They admit the execution of the same before  court.   Respondent paid Rs.8000/- (eight thousand)  before  court  towards  full  satisfaction  of  the  maintenance as per compromise recorded.  In view  of the compromise, petition dismissed.”

4. Respondent wife then filed a Misc. Application no. 34 of  

2003  under  Section  127  Cr.P.C.  before  the  Family  Court,  

Gulbarga  for  cancellation  of  the  earlier  order  and  also  for  

awarding  future  maintenance,  which  was  resisted  by  the  

petitioner  stating  that  the  parties  had  already  reached  a  

compromise  with  regard  to  the  claim  for  maintenance  on  

3.9.1994  and  hence  the  application  for  cancellation  of  the  

earlier order is not maintainable.  The Court accepted the plea  

of the husband and took the view that since such an order was  

still in force and not set aside by a competent Court, it would  

not be possible to entertain an application under Section 127  

Cr.P.C.  The application was, therefore, dismissed on 31.7.2006.

5. We notice, while the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C.  

was pending, respondent wife filed O.S. No. 10 of 2005 before  

the Family Court, Gulbarga under Section 18 of the Act claiming  

maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month.  The claim was

Page 5

5

resisted by the petitioner husband contending that, in view of  

the compromise reached between the parties in Misc. Case No.  

234 of 1992 filed under Section 125 CrPC, respondent could not  

claim any monthly maintenance and hence the suit filed under  

Section 18 of the Act was not maintainable.  The question of  

maintainability was raised as a preliminary issue.  The Family  

Court held by its order dated 15.9.2009 that the compromise  

entered into between the parties in a proceeding under Section  

125 Cr.P.C. would not be bar in entertaining a suit under Section  

18 of the Act.    

6. The  suit  was  then  finally  heard  on  30.9.2010  and  the  

Family Court  decreed the suit  holding that  the respondent is  

entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from  

the defendant husband from the date of the filing of the suit.    

7. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner took up the matter  

before  the  High  Court  by  filing  an  appeal,  being  M.F.A.  No.  

31979 of 2010, which was dismissed by the High Court by its  

judgment  dated  28.3.2011,  against  which  this  SLP  has  been  

preferred.

Page 6

6

8. Shri Raja Venkatappa Naik, learned counsel appearing for  

the petitioner, husband, submitted that suit filed under Section  

18 of the Act is not maintainable, in view of the order dated  

3.9.1994,  accepting  the  consent  terms  and  ordering  a  

consolidated amount towards maintenance under Section 125  

Cr.P.C.

9. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the  

Family  Court  and  confirmed  by  the  High  Court  that  the  suit  

under Section 18 of the Act is perfectly maintainable, in spite of  

the compromise reached between the parties under Order XXIII  

Rule  3  C.P.C.  and  accepted  by  the  Court  in  its  order  dated  

3.9.1994.   

10. 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 determination of the status and personal rights of parties,  

which is in the nature of a civil proceeding, though are governed  

by  the  provisions  of  the  Cr.P.C.  and  the  order  made  under

Page 7

7

Section  125  Cr.P.C.  is  tentative  and  is  subject  to  final  

determination of the rights in a civil court.

11. Section  25  of  the  Contract  Act  provides  that  any  

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.   Proceeding  under  Section  125  Cr.P.C.  is  

summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy to  

the  wife and any order  passed under  Section 125 Cr.P.C.  by  

compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available  

to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Act.      

12. The above being the legal position, we find no error in the  

view taken by the Family Court, which has been affirmed by the  

High Court.  The Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.  

…………………………………J. (K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN)

…………………………………J. (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi, March 15, 2013