NAGENDRAPPA NATIKARversusNEELAMMA

                       (2013] 2 S.C.R. 426


A                  NAGENDRAPPA NATIKAR
                                 v.
                          NEELAMMA
        (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11800 of 2013)
                        MARCH 15, 2013
B
       [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

        HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956:

c        s.18 - Suit claiming maintenance by wife - Held: Is
    maintainable inspite the compromise reached between the
    parties, under 0. 23, r. 3 CPC and an order u/s 125 CrPC
    based thereon granting permanent alimony - Code of
    Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.125 - Code of Civil Procedure,
0   1908 - 0. 23, r.23 - Contract Act, 1872 - s.25.

       In the instant petition filed by the husband, the
  question for consideration before the Court was: whether
  a compromise entered into by husband and wife under
  0. 23, r. 3 CPC, agreeing for a consolidated amount
E towards permanent alimony, thereby giving up any future
  claim for maintenance, accepted by the court in a
  proceeding uls 125 CrPC, would preclude the wife from
  claiming maintenance in a suit filed uls 18 of the Hindu
  Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
F
        Dismissing the petition, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 Any order passed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by
  compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy
  available to a wife uls 18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and
G Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a piece of
  social legislation which provides for a summary and
  speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is
  unable to maintain herself and her children. Section 125
  is not intended to provide for a full and final
H                            426
      NAGENDRAPPA NATIKAR v. NEELAMMA                        427


determination of the status and personal rights of parties,          A
which is in the nature of a civil proceeding; and the order
made u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is tentative and is subject to final
determination of the rights in a civil court. [para 10-11)
[431-B-D-E]
                                                                     8
    1.2 Section 25 of the Contract Act provides that any
agreement which is opposed to public policy is not
enforceable in a court of law and such an agreement is
void, since the object is unlawful. [para 11) [431-D-E]

     1.3 The Family Court and the High Court have rightly            c
held that the suit u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956 is perfectly maintainable, in spite
of the compromise reached between the parties under 0.
23. r. 3 C.P.C. [para 9) [431-A-B]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.                   D
11800 of 2013.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 28.03.2011 of the High
Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in MFA No.
31979 of 2010.                                                       E
     Raja Venkatappa Naik, Raja Raghavendra Naik, S.K.
Tandon, R.K. Gupta, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the
Petitioner.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                      F
     K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Delay condoned.

     2. The question that is raised for consideration in this case
is whether a compromise entered into by husband and wife
under Order XX.Ill Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC),      G
agreeing for a consolidated amount towards permanent
alimony, thereby giving up any future claim for maintenance,
accepted by the Court in a proceeding under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), would preclude the
wife from claiming maintenance in a suit filed under Section 18      H
    428       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013] 2 S.C.R.

A of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short
  "the Act').

       3. The marriage between the petitioner (husband) and
  respondent (wife) took place on 24.5.1987. Alleging that the
B petitioner is not maintaining his wife, respondent filed an
  application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance
  before the 1st Additional JMFC at Gulbarga, being Misc. Case
  No. 234of1992. While the matter was pending, an application
  was preferred by the parties under Order XXlll Rule 3 CPC on
C 3.9.1994 stating that the parties had arrived at a compromise,
  by which the respondent had agreed to receive an amount of
  Rs.8,000/- towards permanent alimony and that she would not
  make any claim for maintenance in future or enhancement of
  maintenance. Consent letter dated 30.3.1990, which is in
  Kannada, the English translation of the same reads as follow:
D
          "Consent letter:
                 I, Neelamma W/o Nagendra Natikar, Age 23 years, ·
          R/o Old Shahabad, do hereby execute this consent letter
          in favour of my husband Nagendra Natikar with free will
          and consent without coercion and misrepresentation. After
          my marriage with Nagendra Natikar, I could not lead
          marital life happy with my husband due to my ill health as
          prior to my marriage I was suffering from backache,
          Paralysis stroke to my left hand and left leg and was also
F         suffering from epilepsy (Fits disease) and therefore I have
          myself decided to withdraw from marital life. I have given
          my consent for mutual divorce. I have no objection if my
          husband would contract second marriage with someone.
          Prior to my marriage I was suffering from chronic disease.
G         I had asked my father not to celebrate her marriage with
          anyone. My father forcibly got marriage with Nagendrappa
          Natikar. Henceforth I will not make any further claims and
          also forfeit my rights in future and I will not claim
          compensation or maintenance or alimony. I am satisfied
H
       NAGENDRAPPA NATIKAR v. NEELAMMA                       429
            [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    with the payment of Rs.8000/- and I will not make any further    A
    claims against my husband.

          I have executed this consent letter in favoaur of my
    husband without any force of anybody and free from
    misrepresentation or coercion. My father.-mother or nay          8
    other family members have no objection for executing this
    consent letter.
                                         Signature of Executant
                                                    Neelamma
                                          (Signed in Kannada))       c
     Signature of witnesses:

     1. Tippanna (signed in Kannada)

     2. Devindrappa (signed in Kannada)
                                                                     D
     3. Syed Zabiullah Sahab (signed scribe)"
The Court, on the same day, passed the following order:
    "Parties both present. Both parties and advocates files          E
    compromise petition. The contents of the compromise
    petition is read over and explained to them. They admit
    the execution of the same before court. Respondent paid
    Rs.8000/- (eight thousand) before court towards full
    satisfaction of the maintenance as per compromise
    recorded. In view of the compromise, petition dismissed."        F

     4. Respondent wife then filed a Misc. Application no. 34
of 2003 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court,
Gulbarga for cancellation of the earlier order and also for
awarding future maintenance, which was resisted by the               G
petitioner stating that the parties had already reached a
compromise with regard to the claim for maintenance on
3.9.1994 and hence the application for cancellation of the earlier
order is not maintainable. The Court accepted the plea of the
husband and took the view that since such an order was still in      H
    430     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A force and not set aside by a competent Court, it would not be
  possible to entertain an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
  The application was, therefore, dismissed on 31.7.2006.

       5. We notice, while the application under Section 127
  Cr.P.C. was pending, respondent wife filed O.S. No. 10 of
8
  2005 before the Family Court, Gulbarga under Section 18 of
  the Act claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per
  month. The claim was resisted by the petitioner husband
  contending that, in view of the compromise reached between
C the parties in Misc. Case No. 234 of 1992 filed under Section
  125 CrPC, respondent could not claim any monthly
  maintenance and hence the suit filed under Section 18 of the
  Act was not maintainable. The question of maintainability was
  raised as a preliminary issue. The Family Court held by its
  order dated 15.9.2009 that the compromise entered into
D between the parties in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
  would not be bar in entertaining a suit under Section 18 of the
  Act.

        6. The suit was then finally heard on 30.9.2010 and the
E Family Court decreed the suit holding that the respondent is
  entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from
  the defendant husband from the date of the filing of the suit.

       7. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner took up the
F matter before the High Court by filing an appeal, being M.F.A.
  No. 31979 of 2010, which was dismissed by the High Court
  by its judgment dated 28.3.2011, against which this SLP has
  been preferred.

       8. Shri Raja Venkatappa Naik, learned counsel appearing
G for the petitioner, husband, submitted that suit filed under
  Section 18 of the Act is not maintainable, in view of the order
  dated 3.9.1994, accepting the consent terms and ordering a
  .consolidated amount towards maintenance under Section 125
  Cr.P.C.
H
       NAGENDRAPPA NATIKAR v. NEELAMMA                      431
            [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     9. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of          A
the Family Court and confirmed by the High Court that the suit
under Section 18 of the Act is perfectly maintainable, in spite
of the compromise reached between the parties under Order
XXlll Rule 3 C.P.C. and accepted by the Court in its order dated
3.9.1994.                                                           B
     10. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a piece of social legislation
which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of
maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and
her children. Section 125 is not intended to provide for a full     C
and final determination of the status and personal rights of
parties, which is in the nature of a civil proceeding, though are
governed by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the order made
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is tentative and is subject to final
determination of the rights in a civil court.
                                                                    D
     11. Section 25 of the Contract Act provides that any
agreement which is opposed to public policy is not enforceable
in a Court of Law and such an agreement is void, since the
object is unlawful. Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy           E
to the wife and any order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy
available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Act.

     12. The above being the legal position, we find no error in
the view taken by the Family Court, which has been affirmed         F
by the High Court. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed in
limine.

R.P.                                           SLP dismissed.