JUDGMENT : 1. The 1st appellant is the wife of the respondent, and the 2nd appellant is their daughter. 2. The appellants as plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.108 of 2003 against the respondent – defendant, on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming past maintenance of Rs.2,55,000/-, and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month i.e., Rs.10,000/- to the first plaintiff and Rs.5,000/- per month to the second plaintiff. 3. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2004 rejected the claim of the 1st plaintiff for maintenance by relying on the matrimonial settlement deed dated 28.12.2002, stated to have been executed between the 1st plaintiff/wife and the defendant/husband, and in respect of 2nd plaintiff/daughter, awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month towards maintenance, payable by the defendant from the date of filing of the suit. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court in rejecting the claim of the 1st plaintiff for maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, and in awarding only an amount of Rs.4,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance to the 2nd plaintiff, the present appeal is filed. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the 1st plaintiff is that her marriage with the defendant took place on 18.11.2011 in Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- along with other presentations to the defendant and that since beginning, the defendant has been harassing her for additional dowry, and in that process necked her out from the matrimonial house on 16.04.2022, when she was pregnant, and that she gave birth to the 2nd plaintiff on 02.09.2002, and as the defendant has neglected her and refused to maintain her, and also as she has no independent source of income and that the defendant is earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month, by working as Consultant in Computer Software Industry at Singapoor, filed the present suit for past and future maintenance against the defendant, as noted above. 7. 7. The defendant filed counter affidavit and denied the allegations of harassment and demand of additional dowry made against him in the plaint, and stated that it is the plaintiff No.1, and his family members behaved rudely with him. His case is that the 1st plaintiff informed him several times that she was forced by her parents to marry him, and that she wanted to get separated from him. That when the 1st plaintiff filed a false criminal case in C.C.No.302 of 2003 for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC, there was a matrimonial settlement between the parties, and a deed was executed on 28.12.2002. As per the said deed, he and the 1st plaintiff decided to take divorce by consent and that he agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the 1st plaintiff towards full and final settlement, and that out of the said amount, he paid Rs.1,00,000/-, vide cheque No.059626 on 28.12.2002, as part payment, and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of filing divorce petition by consent, and on obtaining divorce, but contrary to such settlement, the 1st plaintiff filed the present suit with false allegations. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the suit. 8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for trial? 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for maintenance against the defendant and if so, at what rate? 2. To what relief? 9. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and the father of P.W.1, was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the plaintiffs Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked. 10. On behalf of the defendant, no evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced. 11. The trial court, believing the matrimonial settlement dated 28.12.2002 pleaded by the defendant, and also considering the fact of encashment of cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- by the 1st plaintiff, which was issued by the defendant on 28.12.2002, and by holding that the 1st plaintiff has given a go-bye to the said settlement; rejected her claim for maintenance, and in respect of the 2nd plaintiff granted an amount of Rs.4,000/- from the date of filing of the suit. 12. As already noted above, assailing the above judgment and decree of the trial court, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs. 13. 12. As already noted above, assailing the above judgment and decree of the trial court, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs. 13. In the appeal, appellants/plaintiffs filed ASMP.No.16149 of 2004 for a direction to the respondent/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff, and a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner/2nd plaintiff towards interim maintenance pending the disposal of the appeal. 14. This court vide interim order dated 05.09.2005 granted interim direction as prayed for. 15. Seeking to vacate the interim order dated 05.09.2005, the respondent/defendant filed ASMP.No.2120 of 2005. Vide order dated 05.12.2005, the interim order dated 05.09.2005 was made absolute, and thus resulting in dismissal of the vacate petition. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs while reiterating the averments made in the plaint, further submits that before the trial court the respondent/defendant has relied on an alleged matrimonial settlement deed dated 28.12.2002 stated to have been executed between the parties, when the plaintiff No.1 filed C.C.No.302 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 17. He submits that the case of the defendant is that under the alleged settlement deed dated 28.12.2002, stated to have been signed by both the parties, the defendant has agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards full and final settlement and that in pursuance of the same, he had given cheque to plaintiff No.1 for Rs.1,00,000/- and the same has been en-cashed by the plaintiff No.1, and the balance was agreed to be paid on filing of the petition for divorce on consent, but instead of filing the said petition, filed the present maintenance case, and hence the same is not maintainable. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs further submits that during the course of cross-examination, a suggestion was put to the plaintiff No.1, who was examined as P.W.1 that the said cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- was en-cashed by her, and she has admitted the same. On the ground that plaintiff No.1 has not given proper explanation for en-cashing the cheque, and further the trial court on examining her signature on the vakalat and also on the alleged agreement, found that they are similar, and considering these circumstances, has drawn an adverse inference, and held that the plaintiff No.1 has given a go-bye to the settlement and accordingly rejected her claim for maintenance. 19. 19. He submits that the respondent/defendant has not even entered into witness box and he also did not get the said document marked as an exhibit. When the same was confronted to the plaintiff No.1 during her cross-examination, she has specifically denied the same. Therefore, the court below is not justified in relying on a document, which has not been proved by the defendant. Even assuming that the plaintiff No.1 has en-cashed the cheque, that will not disentitle her to claim maintenance, since as on today she is the wife of defendant and no divorce has been granted, and further due to the harassment of the defendant for additional dowry, the plaintiff No.1 was forced to leave his company, and she is unable to maintain herself and the child. In these circumstances, the court below is not justified in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff No.1 for maintenance. Therefore, he seeks to grant maintenance to the plaintiffs as claimed. 20. On behalf of the respondent, there was no representation. As the matter underwent several adjournments and the appeal is of the year 2004, this court is inclined to dispose of the appeal on merits. However, in this appeal, the respondent/defendant has filed counter affidavit and stated with regard to the alleged matrimonial settlement deed executed between the parties dated 28.12.2002 and the en-cashing of cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- by the plaintiff No.1. Further, supporting the impugned judgment of the trial court, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the rival contentions of both the parties, the issues that arises for consideration is: 1. Whether the plaintiff No.1 is entitled to maintenance, and if so to what extent? 2. Whether the maintenance granted by the trial court to the 2nd plaintiff requires to be increased, and if so to what extent? 3. Whether the impugned judgment of the trial court requires to be interfered with? 22. From the above material on record, there is no dispute that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the defendant and plaintiff No.2 is born to them out of their wedlock. 3. Whether the impugned judgment of the trial court requires to be interfered with? 22. From the above material on record, there is no dispute that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the defendant and plaintiff No.2 is born to them out of their wedlock. However, the allegations of the plaintiff No.1 with regard to harassment meted out by her at the hands of the defendant for additional dowry, and the counter allegations in this regard, are the subject matter of the criminal case, which is stated to be pending adjudication, and hence this court is not entering into the said arena, and is confining to the aspect of maintenance. However, the fact remains that the plaintiff No.1 is not living with defendant and she is living separately along with plaintiff No.2, Her case is that she has no independent source of income and unable to maintain herself and the 2nd plaintiff. This averment has not been disproved by the defendant by leading any evidence. 23. The trial court has mainly relied on the alleged matrimonial settlement deed dated 28.12.2002 executed between the parties. It has also undertaken the job of comparing the signature on the plaintiff No.1 on the disputed settlement deed, and on the vakalat, and came to the conclusion that they are similar. Further, the trial court has taken into consideration the encashment of cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- given by the defendant to the plaintiff No.1, to draw adverse inference against her. 24. It is to be noticed that when the said agreement has been confronted to the plaintiff No.1 in her cross-examination, she has specifically denied the same. The defendant has only filed the alleged agreement dated 28.12.2002 along with the written statement, but he has not proved the same by adducing any evidence and further the document is not marked. He has not even entered into the witness box. In these circumstances, the trial court is not justified in comparing the admitted signature of the plaintiff No.1 on the vakalat, and on the alleged agreement, which has not even been marked, and which has been specifically denied by the plaintiff No.1. 25. He has not even entered into the witness box. In these circumstances, the trial court is not justified in comparing the admitted signature of the plaintiff No.1 on the vakalat, and on the alleged agreement, which has not even been marked, and which has been specifically denied by the plaintiff No.1. 25. Coming to the aspect of en-cashing of the cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- by the plaintiff No.1, as contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, as on today plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the defendant and no material is brought before the court that any petition for divorce is pending adjudication between the parties. It is a fact that plaintiff No.1 is living separately, and has no independent source of income, and in these circumstances, mere en-cashing of the cheque, does not disentitle her from claiming monthly maintenance, and this circumstance also cannot be considered to hold that parties have entered into agreement. Further there is no proof that this cheque was en-cashed pursuant to the alleged agreement and no balance sheet is filed to show that the cheque is en-cashed in this regard. 26. The law on the aspect of maintenance is no longer res integra. The High Court of Bombay in the decision reported in RAMESHWAR S/O SANDU KACHKURE vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, [Crl.W.P.No.295 of 2017 dated 16.03.2018], held that “an agreement, by which the wife relinquishes her right to receive maintenance any time in future, is contrary to public policy and consequently unenforceable.” Similar is the view expressed by different High Courts in TEJASWINI D/o ANANDRAO TAYADE AND ANR. Vs. CHANDRAKANT KISANRAO SHIRSAT AND ANR, [2005(3) MH. L.J. 137], RAJESH R. NAIR vs. MEERA BABU, [2013 CRI.L.J. 3153], SHAHNAZ BANO v. BABU KHAN, [1985 SCC OnLine Bom 200] , RANJIT KAUR v. PAVITTAR SINGH, [1991 SCC OnLine P & H 693], RAMCHANDRA LAXMAN KAMBLE v. SHABHA RAMACHANDRA KAMBLE, [2018 SCC OnLine Bom 7039]. 27. Thus from the above judgments, it is clear that even if the wife executes an agreement relinquishing her right to receive any maintenance in future, that would be contrary to the public policy and unenforceable, and that she would be entitled to seek for maintenance, if she is unable to maintain herself. 27. Thus from the above judgments, it is clear that even if the wife executes an agreement relinquishing her right to receive any maintenance in future, that would be contrary to the public policy and unenforceable, and that she would be entitled to seek for maintenance, if she is unable to maintain herself. In the present case, however the husband failed to prove the alleged agreement, and it is a fact that wife is living separately with the girl child, and is unable to maintain herself, and hence is claiming maintenance. In these circumstances, and in the light of the settled legal position, which is noted above, the judgment of the trial court in totally rejecting the claim of the plaintiff No.1 for maintenance, is highly deplorable, and cannot be sustained. 28. Further it is an admitted fact on record that the husband is a software professional working at Singapoor at the time of marriage. The case of the defendant/husband is that subsequently he lost job and that presently he is an un-employee. When it is fact that he is a software professional, it is clear that he is sufficiently qualified, and that when he is pleading that he is unemployed, he has to prove the same, which he failed. In these circumstances, that irresistible conclusion that has to be drawn is that the defendant having sufficient means, failed to maintain the plaintiffs. 29. The plaintiff No.1 claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for herself and Rs.5,000/- for the 2nd plaintiff. Having regard to the present cost of living and inflation, and also having regard to the fact that the defendant is a software professional, the maintenance amount claimed by the plaintiffs is reasonable and the same requires to be granted. 30. In fact, as already noted above, this court vide interim order dated 5.9.2005 has allowed the interim prayer of the plaintiffs in this regard and subsequently vide the interim order dated 5.12.2005 made the said order absolute. 31. Though the plaintiffs have claimed the maintenance prior to the filing of the suit, as they have not filed proof to show that they have made any demand by issuing any notice, the trial court has rightly restricted the same from the date of filing of the suit in the case of the plaintiff No.2. 31. Though the plaintiffs have claimed the maintenance prior to the filing of the suit, as they have not filed proof to show that they have made any demand by issuing any notice, the trial court has rightly restricted the same from the date of filing of the suit in the case of the plaintiff No.2. Having regard to the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff No.1 is also entitled to maintenance at the rate claimed by her from the date of filing of the suit. 32. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff No.1 is granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit, and the 2nd plaintiff is also granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, (i.e., the amount granted by the trial court is increased by Rs.1,000/-) from the date of filing of the suit. Thus, in all they are entitled to Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 09.10.2003. 33. Since the plaintiff No.1 has admitted that she has en-cashed the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the said amount shall be given credit to in the amounts to be paid by the defendant, and the amounts paid by the defendant pursuant to the interim order of this court also shall be given credit to. In case of 2nd respondent also, amounts already paid by the defendant shall be given credit to. 34. Thus for the foregoing reasons, all the issues framed are answered in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and the appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.