IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 240 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.170/2006 of FAMILY COURT,THIRUVALLA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- SIMON MATHEW, AGED 54 YEARS, THUNDIYIL PUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU, KADAPRA VILLAGE, KUMBANADU MURI, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------- P.M.ALEYAMMA, AGED 54 YEARS, POVANNAM MOOTTIL, KADAMMANITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 240 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.170/06. The Family Court awarded a maintenance of Rs.900/- to the wife and it is challenging the same the husband has come up in revision. The main contest is with reference to the binding nature of Ext.B1 on the parties. There was a previous petition for maintenance as M.C.242/83 which was settled in 1987 whereby the husband gave Rs.65,000/- which takes in the amount for future maintenance as well as for the marriage of the daughter. Therefore it is contended that the wife is not entitled to any maintenance. 2. Learned counsel for the wife would submit that Ext.B1 is only a photocopy of the agreement and therefore it cannot be believed. I have gone through Ext.B1 which contains the signature of both the lawyers and they have been examined wherein they have spoken about these things. So there is an agreement, Ext.B1. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 240 OF 2007 -:2:- 3. The next question is what will be the legal impact of Ext.B1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The wife can be deprived of maintenance (1) only when she is living in adultery (2) if she refused to live with the husband without proper reasons and (3) there is a separation by mutual consent. As far as Ext.B1 is concerned it does not relate to any of these reasons and therefore the statutory right given to a wife cannot be taken away by an agreement of this nature. Further even in 127 cases this Court has taken a view in the decision reported in Damodaran v. Lakshmikutty Amma (1979 KLT 543) that there is “statutory obligation”. In the light of the said decision it has to be stated that Ext.B1 cannot take away the valid right which is conferred by the statute. The amount received for future maintenance plus the marriage expenses of the daughter would come to Rs.41,000/-. If the marriage expenses at that point of time is taken as Rs.25,000/- there will be a left over of about Rs.15,000/-. If 10% interest is calculated it would fetch an income of Rs.125/- per month. That Rs.125/- can be deducted from the amount of Rs.900/- R.P.(F.C.) NO. 240 OF 2007 -:3:- awarded by the Family Court thus making it Rs.775/-. Therefore the amount ordered by the Family Court is modified and the maintenance ordered is reduced from Rs.900/- to Rs.775/- payable from the date of petition. The R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. Ul/-.