The principle underlying the lump sum payment as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bai Tahira's case (supra) can be equally applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. The basic principle is that the object of the lump sum payment to be made is to obviate the destitution of the divorcee and to provide her with the wherewithal to maintain herself. As laid down by the Supreme Court, there must be a rational relation between the sum so paid and its potential as provision for maintenance. In the instant case the petitioner-wife was forced to go to Court for claiming her maintenance. Under the circumstances, then prevailing she gave up her right to claim future maintenance "voluntarily" for lump sum amount and executed the deed of divorce. Now, when she has preferred an application for maintenance, it cannot be said that the application at the instance of the petitioner-wife claiming maintenance is not maintainable because she had surrendered her future right of maintenance. Whenever in application for maintenance it is contended that because lump sum amount is paid towards the claim of future maintenance and therefore the application is not maintainable, it would be the bounden duty of the Court to examine whether the lump sum amount of maintenance mentioned in the deed of divorce or claimed to have been paid otherwise, had any rational connection with the necessities of life to be provided for in future and was it not an illusory amount or was it sufficient amount to maintain herself for the entire life?{Para 7}
8. This principle has its roots in the public policy and the provisions of law. Underlying public policy, behind the provisions of law regarding maintenance is that one who is destitute should be provided maintenance by the person whose duty it is to maintain such person. This public policy cannot be circumvented and the object of law cannot be frustrated by making a payment of illusory amount of maintenance. As far as the surrender of future right to maintenance is concerned, answer is very simple. Agreement to surrender such right of future maintenance for illusory amount of maintenance would be unfair and unconscionable. Such agreement is entered into between two unequals. One (i.e. wife, child or parents, as the case may be) is destitute and helpless and another (i.e. husband, father or son as the case may be) relatively stronger and better placed in the society. Ordinarily this will be the position, though exception cannot be ruled out completely. In this background, if the amount determined for future maintenance is illusory, the agreement to surrender the right to maintenance also would be unlawful as it would be against the public policy and also unconscionable and unfair.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided On: 06.09.1985
Bai Laxmiben Vs. Bharatbhai Vechatbhai Patel and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Ravani, J.
Citation: 1986 DMC 1 129,1986 CRI LJ 1418,1986 GLR 1 272,1985 SCC ONLINE GUJ 187, MANU/GJ/0123/1985.
Print Page
