Even where a wife has accepted a full and final settlement at the time of divorce, such settlement cannot bar the independent and statutory right of a minor child to claim maintenance from the father.
Case Note
Umar Haris v. Yusra Meraj & Anr.
CRL.M.C. 6841/2025, decided on 23rd September 2025 by the Delhi High Court (Justice Neena Bansal Krishna)
Headnote
Family Law — Maintenance — Divorce Settlement — Effect on Minor Child’s Rights — Even where a wife has accepted a full and final settlement at the time of divorce, such settlement cannot bar the independent and statutory right of a minor child to claim maintenance from the father. Allegations of coercion in entering a settlement, and claims of changed circumstances, raise mixed questions of fact and law which must be adjudicated by the Family Court. A petition seeking to quash such maintenance proceedings at the threshold is not maintainable.
Facts
The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife were married in January 2018 and had a son in October 2019. Marital discord led to their separation in May 2021. Following a complaint lodged by the wife, the parties entered into a Talaq-e-Khula divorce on 25 November 2021, accompanied by a comprehensive settlement:
-
The wife received a lump sum of ₹33 lakh towards all past, present, and future claims of maintenance/alimony for herself and the minor child.
-
Custody of the minor was vested in the mother, while the father was granted visitation rights.
-
The wife acknowledged receipt of her jewellery and other articles.
Two years later, in September 2023, the wife filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking ₹1.2 lakh per month for herself and the child. The husband moved the Delhi High Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, to quash this petition, arguing that it was barred by the settlement agreement.
Issues
-
Whether a maintenance petition is maintainable after a wife has relinquished all claims in a full and final settlement at the time of divorce.
-
Whether such settlement extinguishes the right of a minor child to claim maintenance.
-
Whether the High Court should quash the pending maintenance proceedings at the threshold.
Ruling
The Delhi High Court refused to quash the maintenance proceedings. It held:
-
Independent right of child: Settlements between parents cannot bar a child’s right to claim maintenance. This right is absolute and protected by law.
-
Wife’s entitlement: While a wife may waive her own claim to maintenance in a settlement, allegations of coercion and claims of changed circumstances involve questions of fact that must be determined by the Family Court.
-
Quashing not justified: Since maintenance involves mixed questions of fact and law, and since the petition also included the child’s claim, the High Court declined to quash proceedings. The husband was left free to raise his objections before the Family Court.
Ratio Decidendi
A matrimonial settlement extinguishing future maintenance claims cannot preclude a minor child from seeking maintenance from the father. The maintainability of a wife’s subsequent maintenance petition, despite a prior settlement, depends on proof of coercion or change in circumstances, which are factual matters to be determined by the trial court and not at the stage of quashing.
Endnotes (Case Law Cited)
-
Ganesh v. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava, (2020) 20 SCC 787 — Child’s right to maintenance cannot be waived by mother.
-
Vashno Jaishwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1504 — Settlement by mother cannot extinguish minor’s rights.
-
Santosh v. Durga Prasad, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3148 — Settlements to be honored in true letter and spirit.
-
E. Sheela George v. V.M. Alexander, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3501 — Wife may seek maintenance post-settlement only upon showing changed circumstances.
-
Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 — Proof of financial status and changed circumstances is essential in maintenance matters.
-
Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah, Crl. M.C. 4717/2017 (Delhi HC) — Interim maintenance must follow determination of maintainability.
-
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — Quashing permissible only in exceptional cases.
-
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 — Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) to prevent abuse of process.
-
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 — Court may quash proceedings to prevent injustice.
-
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 — Party approaching court with unclean hands not entitled to relief.
-
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 — Fraud vitiates proceedings.
-
Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Diamond and Gem Development Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470 — Doctrine of estoppel: one cannot approbate and reprobate.
Download PDF of Umar Haris v. Yusra Meraj Umar Haris v. Yusra Meraj (Delhi High COurt)