The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stated that any future maintenance waiver agreement made by a wife in exchange for a lump-sum payment goes against India's public policy, meaning this agreement can't stop a wife from seeking maintenance. In this case, the wife had received Rs 60,000 as lump-sum for maintenance and signed a compromise agreement waiving her right to ask for any more maintenance. However, since the amount was quite low, she sought additional maintenance from him.The high court clarified that the wife's decision to waive her maintenance rights does not eliminate her ability to claim maintenance.For some context, the Hoshiarpur Family Court had previously ordered the husband to pay Rs 6,000 per month as maintenance and Rs 60,000 as a lump-sum for her past, present and future maintenance based on a compromise agreement with the husband, where she effectively waived her future maintenance rights, as reported by LiveLaw. However, he claimed that he was a daily wage worker earning Rs 10,000 per month whereas she was an able-bodied woman working as a private maid and should be able to support herself.She responded by saying that though she had previously worked as a maid, but her current earnings were not enough to meet her basic needs for food and clothing .The high court heard both sides and said that since he was not providing any maintenance to her, her efforts to survive through physical labour do not disqualify her from claiming maintenance from her husband, nor does it mean she is not considered 'unable to maintain herself'. The court said that until they compel the husband to pay maintenance allowance, the wife cannot be expected to sit and starve.Citing a Supreme Court case (1978 judgment in Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fidaalli Chothia), the court said that an agreement entered into between the wife and the husband, as a part of a compromise filed in the Court or otherwise, whereby the wife relinquishes or waives the right to claim maintenance in future from the husband against receipt of some amount is opposed to public policy and does not estop her from claiming maintenance.As a result, the high court said that the waiver of right of maintenance by the wife would not negate her claim. The high court also said that the fact that she got Rs 60,000 as lump sum, does not prevent her from claiming maintenance as her statutory right since this money is insufficient and won't last a life-time.The high court also took cognizance of the rising prices of essential commodities and the cost of living.The high court said that as per his own admission, he had passed 10+2th and is also a diploma holder in electrical engineering. He is healthy and able-bodied. He is also a skilled worker working as a mason in the village. Estimation of his income at Rs 20,000 per month can't be said to be on the higher side, considering the minimum wages notified by the state for a skilled worker.On this ground, the high court upheld the family court's Rs 6,000 maintenance order considering the wife's reasonable wants like food, clothing, shelter and medical treatment and dismissed the husband's case.