Can’t take U-turn after agreeing on maintenance allowance: HC

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, March 7

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a wife cannot turn around and seek enhancement of maintenance allowance on the grounds of it being meager and inadequate after agreeing to the amount.

The ruling by Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul came on a petition filed by a wife challenging an order passed on January 21, 2019, by an Additional District and Sessions Judge/Principal Judge, vide which the respondent-husband was directed to monthly pay Rs 5, 000 as maintenance allowance.

Appearing before the Bench, the petitioner’s counsel among other things contended that the wife was 70-year-old suffering from age related medical ailments, with no source of income. The counsel also submitted that the amount awarded vide the impugned order was meagre. As such, it was required to be enhanced for enabling the petitioner to sustain herself as she was currently living at the mercy of her relatives. The counsel added the respondent, on the other hand, was a pensioner, but getting approximately Rs 46,000 per month.

After hearing the petitioner’s counsel and perusing the relevant material on the record, Justice Kaul asserted the parties arrived at an amicable settlement before the court below. The fact was not disputed by the petitioner’s counsel. It was also reflected in the impugned order itself.

The order made it clear that Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance allowance was settled between the parties with the petitioner’s consent herself. A joint statement to the effect was also recorded before the court concerned. The amount was to be deposited by the respondent in the petitioner’s saving bank account and all litigations pending between the parties were to be withdrawn.

“In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner cannot turn around and impugn the amount of maintenance on the ground that it is meager and not enough to sustain herself. It is not even her case that she was threatened or pressurized to enter into a settlement or the settlement was effected fraudulently. Still further, the respondent has been regularly depositing the sum of Rs 5,000 per month in the account of the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the compromise,” Justice Kaul asserted, while dismissing the petition.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.