JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. 2. The respondent filed M.C.No.231/2014 in the Family Court under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C seeking maintenance from the petitioner. The application for maintenance was allowed by the Family Court on 25.06.2016, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per month to the respondent. 3. The respondent filed an application as C.M.P.No.763/2017 under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C for execution of the order granting maintenance to her. While so, the dispute between the parties were settled and Ext.P2 agreement was executed by them on 03.10.2018. 4. The respondent had filed O.P.No.460/2014 also for realisation of past maintenance from the petitioner. She had also filed O.P.No.422/2013 against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. As per Ext.P2 agreement, the respondent agreed to withdraw the execution petitions filed by her for enforcement of the order passed by the court in her favour in O.P.No.460/2014. She also agreed that the relief granted to her in O.P.No.422/2013 is not required by her. The respondent further agreed that she did not want any relief as per the order in M.C.No.231/2014. It was also agreed by her that she would co-operate with the petitioner to cancel the order of the court in M.C.No.231/2014. 6. As per Ext.P2 agreement, the petitioner and the respondent had also agreed that they would live together in the house taken on rent by the petitioner. 7. Subsequently, the parties fell apart. The respondent filed an application as C.M.P.No.423/2019 in the Family Court under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C for realisation of the arrears of maintenance due from the petitioner for the period from 03.01.2018 to 04.04.2019. 8. The petitioner filed counter statement in C.M.P.No.423/2019 contending that, in view of Ext.P2 agreement, the respondent is estopped from claiming maintenance from him in execution of the order passed by the court in M.C.No.231/2014. 9. As per Ext.P4 order, the Family Court negatived the contention raised by the petitioner and found that the order in M.C.No.231/2014 is enforceable against the petitioner and that he is liable to pay the arrears of maintenance claimed by the respondent and directed him to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of two weeks. 10. The legality and propriety of Ext.P4 order are challenged by the husband in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. 10. The legality and propriety of Ext.P4 order are challenged by the husband in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, as per Ext.P2 agreement, the respondent had given up her claim for maintenance and she had agreed that she did not want the relief which was granted in her favour in M.C.No.231/2014 and therefore, the application made by the respondent for execution of the order in M.C.No.231/2014 is not maintainable. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that, as long as the order in M.C.No.231/2014 is in force, the respondent is entitled to execute it against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that, as per Ext.P2 agreement, the respondent had not permanently given up her right to claim maintenance from the petitioner. 14. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the facts earlier narrated in this order. The only question to be considered is, what is the effect of Ext.P2 agreement on the order passed by this Court in M.C.No.231/2014 and whether, in view of Ext.P2 agreement, the respondent is estopped from executing the order granting maintenance against the petitioner. 15. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, on the basis of Ext.P2 agreement, the respondent had withdrawn the application C.M.P.No.763/2017, which was pending before the court at that time. 16. True, as per Ext.P2 agreement, the respondent had agreed that she did not want the relief granted in her favour in M.C.No.231/2014 and that she would co-operate with the petitioner to cancel the aforesaid order. But, the contention of the petitioner that, in view of Ext.P2 agreement, the respondent is estopped from executing the order in M.C.No.231/2014, cannot be accepted. 17. Ext.P2 agreement cannot be interpreted in a manner to mean that the wife had permanently waived or given up or abandoned her right to claim maintenance from the husband. It cannot also be found that, in view of Ext.P2 agreement, the wife had lost her right to enforce the order of the court under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C granting maintenance to her. 18. The issue involved in the present case is directly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahua Biswas v. Swagata Biswas : (1998) 2 SCC 359 . 18. The issue involved in the present case is directly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahua Biswas v. Swagata Biswas : (1998) 2 SCC 359 . It was a case in which order was passed by the Magistrate giving maintenance of token amount to the wife. Later, the parties entered into a compromise and they lived together but subsequently fell apart. The husband contended before the High Court that the orders of maintenance could not be revived as there had arisen a fresh cause of action. The High Court set aside the order of maintenance leaving the wife to again approach the criminal court for appropriate relief. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the wife and activated the wife's claim of maintenance and put her in the same position as before. The Apex Court held as follows: “The matter can be viewed from either angle. It can be viewed that there was a genuine effort by the wife to rehabilitate herself in her matrimonial home but in vain. The previous orders of maintenance in a manner of speaking could at best be taken to have been suspended but not wiped out altogether. The other view can be that the maintenance order stood exhausted and thus she be left to fight a new litigation on a fresh cause of action. Out of the two courses, we would prefer to adopt the first one, for if we were to resort to the second option, it would lead to injustice. In a given case the wife may then be reluctant to settle with her husband lest she lose the order of maintenance secured on his neglect or refusal. Her husband on the other side, would jump to impromptu devices to demolish the maintenance order in duping the wife to a temporary reconciliation. Thus, in order to do complete justice between the parties, we would in the facts and circumstances activate the wife's claim to maintenance and put her in the same position as before”. 19. An agreement entered into by a wife, waiving or abandoning the statutory right to claim maintenance from the husband, is opposed to public policy and void and hence, unenforceable. 20. Bhupinder Singh v. Daljit Kaur : AIR 1979 SC 442 is a case which dealt with almost identical facts. 19. An agreement entered into by a wife, waiving or abandoning the statutory right to claim maintenance from the husband, is opposed to public policy and void and hence, unenforceable. 20. Bhupinder Singh v. Daljit Kaur : AIR 1979 SC 442 is a case which dealt with almost identical facts. In that case, the Supreme Court held as follows: “We are concerned with a Code which is complete on the topic and any defence against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C must be founded on a provision in the Code. Section 125 is a provision to protect the weaker of the two parties, namely, the neglected wife. If an order for maintenance has been made against the deserter it will operate until vacated or altered in terms of the provisions of the Code itself. ..... But until the original order for maintenance is modified or cancelled by a higher court or is varied or vacated in terms of Section 125(4) or (5) or Section 127, its validity survives. It is enforceable and no plea that there has been cohabitation in the interregnum or that there has been a compromise between the parties can hold good as a valid defence. .... A statutory order can ordinarily be demolished only in terms of the statute”. (emphasis supplied). 21. In Haroon v. Sainabha: 1992 (1) KLT 868 ,a contention was raised that the wife and child cannot claim maintenance from the husband because in an earlier proceedings the matter was settled out of court and the wife had executed an agreement in favour of the husband whereby all the disputes regarding maintenance were permanently settled. This Court repelled the contention holding that there is statutory obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and minor son and he cannot be permitted to contract out of such an obligation and such agreement is opposed to public policy. It was held that a waiver in derogation of a statutory right cannot be recognised by the court as it affects public policy and as it is against the very statutory obligation imposed on a husband to maintain his wife and children who are unable to maintain themselves. 22. It was held that a waiver in derogation of a statutory right cannot be recognised by the court as it affects public policy and as it is against the very statutory obligation imposed on a husband to maintain his wife and children who are unable to maintain themselves. 22. In Geeta Satish Gokarna v. Satish Shankarrao Gokarna : AIR 2004 Bom 345 , it has been held that the term of a compromise to the effect that the wife would not claim any maintenance or alimony in future from the husband is against public policy and it has to be treated as non est. 23. In Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fidaalli Chothia : AIR 1979 SC 362 , the question arose whether a divorced wife would lose her right to claim maintenance for herself under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on making a declaration in the compromise resulting in a consent decree that she had no further claim against the husband. The wife had got right in immovable properties and she had also received Rs.5,000/-as mehar from the husband. The trial court held that the former husband was liable to pay maintenance to his former wife and the children inspite of receiving the customary dues and other rights in the properties. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the trial court. 24. When an agreement is entered into by the wife and the husband, as a part of compromise filed in the Court or otherwise, whereby the wife relinquishes or waives the right to claim maintenance in future from the husband, such an agreement is opposed to public policy and it does not preclude her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C (See Vikraman Nair v. Aishwarya : 2018 (5) KHC 156 : 2019 (1) KLT 826 ). 25. Very recently, in Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor: MANU/SC/0209/2020, the Supreme Court has held that the Family Court can revive the maintenance application of the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C by setting aside a previous order passed on settlement between the parties. 26. There is no need of any more discussion on the issue. Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the amount of maintenance during the period mentioned in the petition filed by the respondent. 26. There is no need of any more discussion on the issue. Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the amount of maintenance during the period mentioned in the petition filed by the respondent. He is liable to pay the amount of maintenance to the respondent unless and until the order passed in M.C.No.231/2014 is varied or modified or cancelled. He cannot avoid execution of the order in M.C.No.231/2014 as far as that order is in force. 27. The discussion above would lead to the conclusion that there is no illegality or impropriety in Ext.P4 order passed by the Family Court. There is no sufficient ground to interfere with Ext.P4 order by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the original petition is dismissed.