IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16110 of 2010(Q) -------------------------- MC.106/2009 of J.M.F.C. - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DIVYA KURUP, D/O.PANKAJAKSHAKURUP KUTTIVARASSERIL HOUSE, VAVVAKKAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. HAREESH HARIDASAN NAIR, S/O.HARIDASAN NAIR, RESIDING AT `POURNAMI' KARUVATTA P.O., KUMARAPURAM, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.16110 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27 th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the wife of the 1st respondent herein is the applicant in M.C.No.106/2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Karunagappally under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming future maintenance. There were other proceedings also between the parties like proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , a prosecution under Section 498A IPC etc. The marital partners eventually decided to separate by mutual consent and an agreement to that effect was executed. Past maintenance due to the petitioner was paid. However, according to the petitioner, due to oversight, the future maintenance to her was also agreed to be waived by her. In view of the said clause in the agreement, the petitioner would allege that the learned Magistrate before whom M.C.No.106/2009 is pending is apparently disinclined to award future maintenance and the petition is being adjourned endlessly. The petitioner, W.P.(c)No.16110 of 2010 2 therefore, prays for a direction to the Magistrate to take up M.C.No.106/2009 for trial and dispose of the same expeditiously. 2. I see no no reason why the prayer of the petitioner should not be granted . Incidently, it is pertinent to note that a contract entered into between the husband and the wife, as per which the wife has forfeited her right to maintenance, may amount to contracting out the husband's obligation to maintain the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Sadasivan Pillai v. Vijayalekshmi ( 1987(1) KLT 381). The learned Magistrate shall bear in mind the above decision while considering the maintenance application. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the J.F.C.M, Karunagappally to take up M.C.No.106/2009, for trial, so far as it relates to the claim of future maintenance to the petitioner is concerned, and dispose of the same expeditiously and at any rate within 4 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj