The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently set aside a family court order directing a man to pay ₹5,000 as monthly maintenance to his ex-wife.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal rejected the woman’s maintenance plea after finding that she failed to disclose that she had already received ₹16 lakh in a settlement in lieu of her future maintenance.  

The Bench said that a litigant who attempts to mislead the Court by submitting false facts or by concealing material facts is not entitled to any relief. 

“Even though, waiver of the right to claim maintenance by xxx did not preclude her from claiming maintenance, she was required to disclose all material facts when approaching the Court for relief. Law is fairly well settled that a litigant, who approaches the Court of law seeking redressal of any grievance and claims relief, is obliged to disclose complete and true facts. The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation,” the Court said.

The Court was dealing with petitions challenging the family court order. Both the ex-wife and the ex-husband had approached the Court against it.

The couple married in 1998 and three children were born out of the wedlock. However, the marriage later ran into rough weather and was dissolved in 2007. However, she subsequently approached a family court in Ambala, alleging that he refused to maintain her or the children.

The woman prayed for monthly maintenance of ₹15,000, stating that her ex-husband was earning ₹3 lakh per month from agriculture land in Kurukshetra and also earning more than ₹3 lakh per month in the United Kingdom.

However, the ex-husband contested it stating that she had already received ₹16 lakh as lump sum maintenance from him in a civil suit decided in 2010. It was also argued that she had already married another man in England. He also argued that he was jobless and without any income. 

A family court ordered him to pay ₹5,000 as monthly maintenance as well as litigation expenses of ₹5,500, ruling that the compromise in the civil suit had been violated. It was also ruled that such compromise cannot be treated as a legal agreement to defeat the ex-wife’s right to maintenance.

The matter then reached the High Court. In a judgment delivered on March 30, Justice Nagpal agreed that statutory rights of maintenance conferred by Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be waived away by a mutual agreement.

"Such an agreement is opposed to public policy, intended to defeat the provisions of law, enacted to provide speedy remedy to a wife. To that extent, findings of learned Family Court, Ambala that the statutory right of a wife, who is unable to maintain herself, to be maintained by her husband/ex-husband cannot be waived off, are in order,” the judge said.

However, the Court also observed that the claimant or the ex-wife was bound to disclose that she had already received ₹16 lakh from the father of her ex-husband following a compromise in a civil suit. 

It noted that under the compromise, both the daughters were to remain with the father and the son was to remain with the mother. The ₹16 lakh amount was paid in lieu of her future maintenance and for education and upbringing of the minor son, it added.

Since the same was not disclosed before the family court, the Court accepted the husband’s revision plea.

“Thus, suppression of the compromise Ex. R-1 and receipt of ₹16,00,000/- in a previously instituted civil suit relating to maintenance of xxx, as also the factum of divorce between the parties would disentitle her to any relief. Order of learned District Judge, Family Court, Ambala awarding maintenance to Gurmeet Kaur is in clear violation of settled legal norms. The order under challenge being perverse is, therefore, liable to be set aside,” the Court ruled.

Advocates Nilesh Kumar Goyal and Amarjit Singh represented the ex-husband.

Advocates Sudhanshu Sharma and Himanshu Sharma represented the ex-wife.