(1) THIS revision petition filed by Jasbir Singh is directed against the judgment dated 11th April, 1991, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jagadhani whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 350/- per month towards maintenance allowance to the respondent wife Hardeep Kaur.

(2) HARDEEP Kaur filed petition under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that she was married to the petitioner on 16th November, 1983 and that her father had spent a huge amount on dowry. It was further alleged by her that the mother of the petitioner was peevish; that she started maltreating her in the month of April, 1984; that she pestered her to bring money from her father so that a plot may be purchased. Hardeep Kaur further alleged that she was not in a position to bring the money from her father as demanded; that she was threatended that she would be burnt after putting kerosene oil on her; that her mother-in-law instigated her husband by levelling false allegations and that her husband gave beating to her mercilessly.

(3) IT is further alleged by the respondent-wife that the petitioner and his mother turned her out from the matrimonial home in the month of April. 1984; that father of Hardeep Kaur tried to patch up the matter but in vain; that she remained with her parents for about four months; that the respectables from the brotherhood were also called; that the petitioner and his mother assured them that they would not maltreat Hardeep Kaur that upon such an assurance, she went along with the petitioner but the mother of the petitioner started taunting her; that she threw kerosene oil on her and also attempted to burn her; that on hearing her cries many people gathered there and saved her; that her father and other relations were also called and that the matter was not, however , reported to the police at the instance of the relations. It was further alleged in the petition that on 16th December, 1984 a son was born to the respondent; that the petitioner (husband) as well as his mother did not care for the health of the respondent and no medical treatment was provided to her; that she was again turned out of the house and her father came to take her back; that her son was ailing seriously and that the child was taken to Safdarjang Hospital by her father, but he could not be saved and died on 5th February, 1985.

(4) IT is further the case of the respondent that she has got no sufficient means and is unable to maintain herself; that she does not have any immovable property; that dowry articles, including clothes and ornaments are in possession of the petitioner and his mother; that the petitioner is serving in M/s. Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation and is a qualified personal that he is a permanent employee of the paid firm and getting Rs. 1,200/- per mensem with no liability on him and that he has intentionally neglected and refused to maintain her. She claimed a sum of Rs. 500/- p. m. for her maintenance.

(5) THE petitioner admitted that he was married to the respondent on 17th November, 1983 at Yamuna Nagar. The relationship of husband and wife is also admitted. The other allegations contained in the petition have been denied. It is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent is a qualified and educated woman having done her Matriculation in March, 1987 that she also passed the Diploma in Cutting from I. T. I. Yamuna Nagar; that; she holds a diploma in embroidery and a diploma in teaching, both having done from Yamuna Nagar and that she has handsome income from teaching and sewing clothes and also by way of providing training. The petitioner admitted that he was serving M/s, Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation Yamuna Nagar but has stated that his monthly income is not more than Rs. 600/- p. m. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that he has also to look after his old mother. The petitioner further mentioned that he is ready and willing to keep the respondent with him and had never neglected her and that she left the matrimonial home without his consent.(6) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has, in the first instance, drawn my attention to Ex. R-1 which is a mutual agreement and receipt of money already paid to the respondent. The Counsel contended that a decision was taken mutually between the parties and pursuant to that, the petitioner paid her a sum of Rs. 15,240/- in lump sum in the presence of Sh. P. D. Sharma and Sh. Joga Singh S/o Dalip Singh, towards her maintenance. Counsel further submitted that once the respondent was a party to the said agreement and had received the said amount, her application Under Section 125, Cr. P. C. , was not maintainable.

(7) IT is mentioned in Ex. R1 that the parties were married on 17th November, 1983; that no male or female child out of their wedlock was alive at the time of the agreement dated 7th March, 1986; that the petitioner and the respondent were not on good terms and that, therefore, the brotherhood got the matter compromised between them and Hardeep Kaur had been given all the articles which she had brought as dowry. It is further mentioned in the said compromise that Hardeep Kaur shall withdraw her petition Under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, pending in the Court which was fixed for 10th March, 1986 and that after withdrawal of the said petition, she shall not initiate any proceedings against the petitioner and the latter too shall abide by the terms mentioned therein. According to the document, a sum of Rs. 15,240/- was paid to the respondent in the presence of the witnesses.

(8) AN amount of Rs. 15,240/- was paid to the respondent in lieu of her dowry articles and 17 gms. of gold and it is nowhere mentioned in the compromise that the petitioner had paid any amount to the respondent towards the maintenance allowance. I have scrutinised Ex. R1 and am of the firm view that the amount of Rs. 15,240/- was paid to the respondent by the petitioner in the presence of the witnesses towards her dowry articles and 17 gms. of gold, and not towards the maintenance allowance. Even otherwise also, the respondent cannot be debarred from having recourse to the provisions of law. If at all such an agreement was reached between the parties, the condition debarring the respondent from seeking remedy in a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be imposed on her. Imposition of such a condition on a party is contrary to law. To impose a restraint, debarring the respondent from ever seeking the remedy for maintenance allowance is against public policy, irrespective of it whether such a condition is imposed by a deed or will or by a simple contract. A contract opposed to public policy is unenforceable in law. Thus, any restraint placed on the respondent under a compromise forbidding her from seeking the remedy for maintenance allowance has to be held as void.

(9) EVEN if it were presumed that the said amount was paid to the respondent towards her further maintenance in that event too no condition can be imposed upon her rights and if such a restriction has been imposed upon her, the same is opposed to the public policy and law. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had been paid for future maintenance under Ex. R1. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.