Order The two questions which arise for determination in these Criminal Revision Petitions, Crl.R.P. No. 57 of 1977 filed by the husband and Crl. R.P.No. 64 of 1977 filed by the wife., are whether a party can contract out of the statutory obligation to give maintenance arising under sections 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether the maintenance awarded in the case is disproportionate to the income of the husband. 2. The petitioner in Crl.R.P. No. 57 of 1977, now a Headmaster in an Upper Primary School, married the petitioner in Crl. R.P.No.64 of 1977 in the year 1963 and during their wedlock two daughters Vanaja and Thulasi, now aged 11 and 9 respectively, were born to them. Alleging neglect on the part of the husband to maintain, a petition was filed by the wife; before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First-Class, Tellicherry claiming maintenance for herself and the children. The Magistrate passed an order on 1st July, 1974, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40 per mensem to the wife and Rs. 20 each to the minor children. Thereafter, in the year 1975, the wife filed M.C. No. 57 of 1975 before the same Court under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming enhanced maintenance for herself and her two minor children alleging change in their circumstances. This application was resisted by the husband on the ground that as per Ex.D-1 contract, the wife and the children have given up their right to claim enhanced maintenance and there has been no change of circumstance to warrant interference with the order of maintenance previously passed. The learned Magistrate, on a consideration of evidence adduced on both sides, held that the wife and children are not bound by Ex.D-1 agreement and that there has been a change in the circumstance since the passing of the first order and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 70 per mensem to the wife and Rs.40 each to the two minor children. This order was challenged by both the parties before the Court of Session, Tellicherry, the husband filing Cr.R.P. No.65 of 1976, and the wife Crl. R.P. No. 77 of 1976. 70 per mensem to the wife and Rs.40 each to the two minor children. This order was challenged by both the parties before the Court of Session, Tellicherry, the husband filing Cr.R.P. No.65 of 1976, and the wife Crl. R.P. No. 77 of 1976. That Court disposed of these petitions by a common order holding that although there has been a change in the circumstances the wife is bound by Ex.D-1 agreement and reduced the amount of maintenance granted to the wife to Rs. 40 per mensem, but enhanced the maintenance granted to the minors by a warding Rs. 70 and Rs. 60 respectively per mensem. 3. This order is challenged by both the parties, the husband on the ground that the minors are not entitled to enhanced maintenance and the quantum of maintenance awarded to them is excessive and he wife centerding that Ex. D-1 which is inoperative and un enforceable under the Indian Contract Act cannot take away her right to claim enhanced maintenance under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The first question arising for decision is whether the wife is entitled to claim enhanced maintenance in view of the agreement in Ex. D-1. It was contended on behalf of the wife that Ex. D-1 agreement is clearly hit by section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and that a statutory right conferred on the wife cannot be taken away by a contract entered into beteween the parties. 5. It is not disputed that the wife was receiving a monthly allowance as ordered by the Magistrate. It is mainly on the ground that the wife is bound by Ex. D-1 agreement that the husband is refusing to give her anything more than what has been agreed to in Ex.D-1. Under section 127(1) of the Code, on proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving under section. 125 a monthly allowance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, father or mother, as the case may be, are Magistrate can make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit. The children or mother receiving maintenance under section 125 of the Code has been given a right under section 127 of the claim enhanced maintenance or; proof of change in their circumstances. Before considering the validity and enforceability of Ex. The children or mother receiving maintenance under section 125 of the Code has been given a right under section 127 of the claim enhanced maintenance or; proof of change in their circumstances. Before considering the validity and enforceability of Ex. D-1 against the claim of the wife and children, it is necessary to notice the circumstances under which this agreement was said to have been executed. The wife filed a suit for recovery of past maintenance and delivery expenses before the Munsiff's Court. This suit was compromised and it was thereafter that Ex-D-1. happened to be executed. The Counsel for the husband vigorously argued that Ex.D-1 agreement is fully supported by consideration inasmuch as the husband has paid an amount of Rs. 500 and also given to the wife ornaments weighing 9½ sovereigns, that the wife had clearly agreed not to claim enhanced main enance, that there is no absolute restract of any legal proceedings incorporated in the agreement and therefore section 23 of the Act cannot apply to the facts of this case. In support of this contention, the Counsel relied on the decisions reported in Sone Singh v. State Industrial Court1 and Firm, Pratapcnant v. Firm, Kotrike2 while the Counsel for the wife cited Sadaswan Nair v. Kamalakshi3, Abubacker v. Katheesa4, and Waman Shriniwas v. R.B. & Co.5, to support his contentions. A reading of Ex.D-1 clearly shows that the amount of Rs.50 agreed to be paid by the husband was towards the amount claimed in the plaint and that the ornaments said to have been given to the wife was these which belonged to her and had been taken away by the husband from her. It cannot therefore be said that it was on receiving the amount and ornaments that the wife agreed to forego her right to claim enhanced maintenance. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act reeds: The consideration or Object of an agreement is lawful, unless - it is forbidden by law; or is such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regard it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to he unlawful. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to he unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.” A statutory obligation has been imposed on a husband to maintain his wife and children unable to maintain themselves and also to give enhanced maintenance to them under section 12” of the Code. No party can be permitted to contract himself out of such an obligation and if permitted. it would be certainly defeating a legal right statutorily conferred under sections 125 and 127 of the Code. The primary object of the salutary provisions in sections 125 and 127 in Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specially enacted as a measure of social justice to protect women and children, is to provide a speedy and summary remedy ensuring some supply of food, clothing and shelter to deserted or discarded or neglected wife and children and thus prevent vagrancy and save them from starvation and misery. A contract of the nature in Ex.D-1 taking away the statutory right of claiming enhanced maintenance under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is certainly one opposed to public policy. 6. In Sadaswan Nair v. Kamalakshi1 this Court while considering almost a similar question held that the general principle is that when a statute enjoins or directs a thing to be done by a person, it is not open to him to contract out of that obligation. In Abubacker v. Katheesa2, this Court has taken a similar view. There it was a case where a father paid a lump sum to the mother towards the maintenance of a minor child and entered into an agreement with her that he need not pay anything more towards maintenance. It was held that a father cannot divest himself of his liability to maintain his child by an agreement with his wife. A plea of waiver of rights under sections 125 and 127 of the Coded of Criminal Procedure cannot be sustained because as a result of giving effect to that plea, the Court world be enforcing an illegal agreement and thus contravening the statutory provisions. A waiver in derogation of a statutory right is not favoured. So also a waiver which offends public policy will be inoperative and void. A waiver in derogation of a statutory right is not favoured. So also a waiver which offends public policy will be inoperative and void. It is not permissible to any person to rely upon a contract the making of which the law prohibits. By enforcing Ex-D-1 contract, the consequence will be enforcement of an illegality and infraction of a statutory provision which cannot be condoned by any contract or agreement of parties. See Waman Shriniwas v. R.B. & Co.3 “A plea of waiver cannot be given effect to if the consequence is the enforcement of an agreement m contravention of a statutory provision and produce the very result which the statute prohibits and makes illegal. If unlawfulness or illegality is every indirectly connected with a perfectly innocent and legal contract, the contract is rendered unlawful or illegal, the Court would refuse to enforce it. This would include a colltera1 of an earlier illegality.” (Soe Pollock and Mulla, Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, Ninth Edition, p.249/. Both the decisions cited by the Counsel for the husband have no application to the facts of the case under consideration. In Sone Singh v. State Industrial Court4 the question that arose for consideration was whether the agreement reiled on in that case was one coming within the purview of section 28 of the Indian Contract Act. In the other case the Supreme Court was dealing with wagering contracts. 7. It follows from the above that the petitioner in Crl.R.P. No. 64 of 1977 (the wife) is not bound by Ex.D-1 agreement and the statutory right a wife to get enhanced maintenance cannot be deprived of or denied by an agreement of the nature found in Ex.D-1, 8. The next point for consideration is whether there has been any proof of charge in circumstances and the maintenance awarded to the wife and the two minors is in any way excessive. The first child at the material time was studying in the 7th standard and the second in the 4th standard. The evidence on record clearly establish that there has been change of circumstances. According to the wife, the husband was getting an amount of Rs. 526 per month as salary besides the income which he gets from the properties, while the husband would state that his salary was Rs. 420 after the deductions and that he has no other source of income. According to the wife, the husband was getting an amount of Rs. 526 per month as salary besides the income which he gets from the properties, while the husband would state that his salary was Rs. 420 after the deductions and that he has no other source of income. It is seen from the certificate issued by the Educational Officer produced in this Court accompanied by an affidavit that the husband was getting a salary of Rs. 651 as on 26th November, 1975. In the light of the relevant facts and circumstances disclosed in ‘evidence,I think an amount of Rs. 50 to the wife and Rs. 60 and Rs. 50 per mensem respectively to the minor children will be quite reasonable. 9. In the result, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and instead an order awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per mensem to the wife and Rs. 60 and children per mensem respectively to the two children is passed. This order will take effect from 14th June, 1976, the date of the order passed by the Magistrate. 10. The petitions are disposed of as above. M.C.M. ----- Ordered according.