AVANI Vs. PRATHEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision on hand is filed against an order passed by Family Court, Kalpetta on 28.09.2018 dismissing M.C.No.117 of 2017 filed by the 2nd revision petitioner who is none other than the wife of the respondent for and on behalf of the 1st revision petitioner, the minor daughter born to her in her marriage with the respondent. A claim for Rs.10,000/- was raised in M.C.No.117 of 2017 as monthly maintenance to the 1st revision petitioner and the same was declined by the Family Court on the basis of Ext.P4 agreement executed by the 2nd revision petitioner and the respondent at the time of filing of a joint petition seeking divorce, whereby, the 2nd revision petitioner had relinquished the right of the 1st revision petitioner to get monthly maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C after receiving Rs.1,25,000/- + Rs.50,000/- from the respondent for and on behalf of the 1st revision petitioner.

(2.) It is urged by Adv.Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned counsel on behalf of the revision petitioners that the entitlement of the 1st revision petitioner to get monthly maintenance from her father is a right available under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and being a statutory right, it cannot be waived or relinquished by her mother while representing her as next friend during her age of minority, by accepting a lumpsum amount. The learned counsel has also relied on Vikraman Nair v. Aishwarya [2018 (4) KLJ 528 ] to rest the above contention.

(3.) Adv.Jeswin.P.Varghese, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has contended that the 2nd revision petitioner after accepting Rs.1,25,000/- + Rs.50,000/- (being the cost of gold chain of the mother) and agreeing to utilise the interest accrued on making a fixed deposit of that amount, towards maintenance of the 1st revision petitioner cannot now turn round and raise a claim before the Family Court seeking to fix the monthly maintenance reasonably in favour of the minor child. According to him, the revision petitioner would be unlawfully enriched on allowing the M.C in her favour and issuing a direction to the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance fixed by it. It is urged by the learned counsel that it undoubtedly would prejudice the respondent and the Family Court is justified in dismissing the M.C, thereby disallowing the claim for maintenance.