A landmark clarification has emerged from the Chhattisgarh High Court on the enforceability of maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC even after private settlements. The judgment underscores that judicial orders cannot be overridden by unilateral agreements, reinforcing the principle that statutory rights to maintenance are protected by law and require formal judicial intervention for modification.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose between a retired husband and his wife over the enforcement of a maintenance order originally granted in 2019. Despite a subsequent one-time settlement in 2023, wherein the husband paid Rs. 11,00,000 in cash and the wife agreed to withdraw all pending proceedings, she filed a fresh application under Section 125(3) CrPC seeking monthly maintenance. The Family Court upheld the original order, prompting the husband to file a criminal revision.
Procedural History
- 01.04.2019: Family Court ordered husband to pay Rs. 6,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- 18.07.2023: Parties executed a private compromise wherein husband paid Rs. 11,00,000 as lump sum; wife agreed to withdraw all pending cases.
- 06.05.2023: Wife filed application under Section 125(3) CrPC seeking enforcement of maintenance.
- 23.01.2024: Family Court directed continuation of Rs. 6,000 monthly maintenance, ignoring the settlement.
- 27.01.2026: Criminal revision dismissed by Chhattisgarh High Court.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the Family Court’s order, arguing that the private settlement extinguished the maintenance obligation and that the subsequent application constituted abuse of process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a private settlement and payment of lump sum alimony can extinguish a subsisting Section 125 CrPC maintenance order without formal judicial modification or cancellation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The applicant’s counsel argued that the settlement was voluntary, witnessed, and involved substantial payment, thereby constituting full and final discharge of all marital obligations. Reliance was placed on principles of equity and good faith, contending that permitting enforcement of the original order after settlement amounted to unjust enrichment and harassment. The husband, a retired person with no independent income, had incurred significant financial strain to fulfill the settlement.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel maintained that Section 125 CrPC is a statutory remedy designed to prevent destitution, and its enforcement cannot be waived by private agreement. The settlement was never filed before or approved by the court, and therefore had no legal effect on the subsisting order. The wife’s right to maintenance, once adjudicated, remains enforceable until lawfully altered.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court examined the nature of Section 125 CrPC as a remedial provision intended to ensure basic sustenance for dependents. It emphasized that such orders are not contractual but statutory, and their enforcement is not subject to private negotiation. The Court noted that while settlements are encouraged, they must be brought on record and formally accepted by the court to alter or discharge a judicial order.
"The alleged compromise dated 18.07.2023 and payment of a lump sum amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- were neither brought on record in accordance with law nor accepted by the Court so as to supersede or nullify the subsisting maintenance order."
The Court held that the Family Court acted within its jurisdiction by enforcing the original order, as no application for modification, variation, or discharge had been filed or adjudicated. The absence of judicial sanction rendered the settlement irrelevant to the enforceability of the maintenance decree. The Court further rejected the argument of abuse of process, noting that the wife’s application was filed under a statutory provision and did not constitute malafide litigation merely because a prior settlement existed.
The Verdict
The applicant’s revision was dismissed. The Court held that a Section 125 CrPC maintenance order remains enforceable even after a private settlement unless formally modified or vacated by a competent court. The wife’s right to maintenance was upheld as a statutory entitlement, independent of private agreements.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Orders Trump Private Settlements
- Practitioners must advise clients that Section 125 CrPC orders cannot be discharged by informal agreements, even if accompanied by substantial payment.
- Any settlement must be filed before the court and incorporated into a formal order to have legal effect.
- Failure to do so leaves the original maintenance order fully enforceable.
Settlements Require Formal Recordal
- Lawyers drafting settlement deeds in matrimonial disputes must include a clause requiring joint filing of the compromise before the Family Court.
- Courts may refuse to recognize settlements unless they are part of the judicial record.
- A lump sum payment, however large, does not extinguish statutory rights without court approval.
Enforcement Is Not Abuse of Process
- Filing a Section 125 application after settlement does not automatically amount to harassment.
- The burden lies on the party alleging abuse to prove malafide intent, not merely the existence of a prior settlement.
- Courts will prioritize statutory rights over equitable arguments absent judicial intervention.
