The bench of Justice UU Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra at Supreme Court, exercising the power under Article 142, set aside the clause from the consent term, which was denying the maintenance rights of the child.
The Principle Judge, Family Court passed the order in Nov 2017 with 12 clauses which both the husband and wife agreed mutually for divorce. Then the wife failed to comply the mutually agreed term.
..
6) The applicant has released the right of monthly maintenance to the daughter with the non-applicant. The applicant has fully accepted responsibility for the child’s livelihood, education and health.
7) Both of them have agreed that the non-applicant will not meet his daughter which is in the custody of the applicant in the future, and will not make any civil or criminal claim in any court to get custody and visitation right of the daughter.
10) The applicant has lodged a complaint against the non-applicant and his two relatives at Taluka Pathri Dist. Parbhani. She will take the complaint back.
12) As mentioned above there is no matter pending in any Hon’ble Court between the parties.
The order of The Principle Judge Family Court
The applicant husband then reached to High Court in year 2018. He filed the Contempt petition as the respondent wife did not followed one of the clause “to close all the cases” in the consent term. The High Court dismissed the application, then he moved to Supreme Court for appeal.
The bench of Justice UU Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra concerning the Rights of the Child, had the opinion that, the mother can not deny maintenance rights of her daughter and said as;
“It was certainly open to the wife to give up any claim so far as maintenance or permanent alimony or stridhan but she could not have given up the rights which vest in the daughter insofar as maintenance and other issues are concerned.”
The bench also observed as;
“If the parties had arrived at asettlement and decided to withdraw the cases filed by each of the parties against the other, the compromise ought to be effectuated in complete sense.”
“With the aforesaid view, the appeals stand allowed to the aforesaid extent.”
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4031-4032 OF 2019