CR-3913-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 236 Shilpa Rohan Chaudhary CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA PRESENT: NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. Shipa in the Memo of Parties) has filed the present revision petition enhancement/modification of the interim maintenance already granted to her @₹7000/ (Annexure P Nagar, Mohali, in an application filed by her for gr maintenance. 2. the respondent on 28.04.2017. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (fo pendency of the said petition, the petitioner had also filed an application under Section 24 of the dated 14.01.2019 (Annexure P 2019 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Rohan Chaudhary CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA PRESENT: Mr. Raj Kumar Chandana, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, J. The petitioner-wife, namely, Shilpa (wrongly mentioned as Shipa in the Memo of Parties) has filed the present revision petition enhancement/modification of the interim maintenance already granted to 7000/- per month vide impugned (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, in an application filed by her for gr maintenance. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 28.04.2017. No child was born out of the said wedlock. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short - ‘the HMA’), for annulment of marriage pendency of the said petition, the petitioner had also filed an application under Section 24 of the HMA which was allowed vide impugned order 14.01.2019 (Annexure P-1), thereby granting inte IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3913-2019 Date of decision: 05.05.2025 ..... Petitioner ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Raj Kumar Chandana, Advocate for the petitioner. wife, namely, Shilpa (wrongly mentioned as Shipa in the Memo of Parties) has filed the present revision petition for enhancement/modification of the interim maintenance already granted to impugned order dated 14.02.2019 1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, in an application filed by her for grant of interim Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to No child was born out of the said wedlock. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage the HMA’), for annulment of marriage. During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner had also filed an application HMA which was allowed vide impugned order 1), thereby granting interim maintenance wife, namely, Shilpa (wrongly mentioned as for enhancement/modification of the interim maintenance already granted to 14.02.2019 1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, SAS ant of interim Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to No child was born out of the said wedlock. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage . During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner had also filed an application HMA which was allowed vide impugned order rim maintenance RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-3913-2019 of ₹7000/- expenses. 3. petitioner is entitled to respondent is duty bound to maintain further submitted that the and as such she need ₹22,000/- qualified Engineer by profession (B.Tech. IT) working Service Private Limited; and getting a salary of Besides this, the respondent is havin is prayed that the present order dated maintenance @ ₹15,000/- be enhanced. 4. petitioner. 5. gone through the case file. 6. petitioner. A at the time of passing of impugned order was stated to have been earning ₹1,00,000/- 7. Cr.P.C., or Section 24 HMA, unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. A three 2019 -2- - per month, besides a sum of Learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to adequate amount of interim maintenance as, the respondent is duty bound to maintain her as his legally wedded wife. further submitted that the petitioner is totally and as such she needs at least ₹50,000/- per month as maintenance; towards litigation expenses. The respondent qualified Engineer by profession (B.Tech. IT) working Service Private Limited; and getting a salary of Besides this, the respondent is having ancestral property. is prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 14.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) be set aside and maintenance @ ₹7000/- per month as well as the litigation expenses of be enhanced. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner gone through the case file. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of . Admittedly, the petitioner herself is a Software Engineer at the time of passing of impugned order was stated to have been earning - per month. The purpose of social legislations, such as , or Section 24 HMA, is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. A three , besides a sum of ₹15,000/- towards litigation Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that amount of interim maintenance as, the as his legally wedded wife. It is petitioner is totally dependent upon her parents; per month as maintenance; and towards litigation expenses. The respondent-husband is a qualified Engineer by profession (B.Tech. IT) working at the Trans Glaxia Service Private Limited; and getting a salary of ₹12,00,000/- per annum. g ancestral property. Accordingly, it petition be allowed and the impugned be set aside and the amount of per month as well as the litigation expenses of No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the dmittedly, the petitioner herself is a Software Engineer; and at the time of passing of impugned order was stated to have been earning social legislations, such as Section 125 is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. A three- towards litigation submits that amount of interim maintenance as, the It is upon her parents; and husband is a the Trans Glaxia per annum. Accordingly, it petition be allowed and the impugned the amount of per month as well as the litigation expenses of No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the and carefully the and at the time of passing of impugned order was stated to have been earning Section 125 is to protect abandoned wives who are RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-3913-2019 Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in v. Veeraswamy Fatima Beevi, held as follows: 8. anr. (1996) 4 SCC 479, 9. a destitute woman. also not suffering from any physical infirmity passing of the documentary proof qua their monthly income. that in matters to depict their own income on the lower exaggerated income of the other spouse. The truth in between. otherwise of the allegations and counter parties can only be determined upon leading of evidence. 2019 -3- Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Veeraswamy (K.), (1991) 2 SCC 375 evi, held as follows: “3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife. Again, in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria (1996) 4 SCC 479, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined “15. ...While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim f provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation…” The clear purpose of the provision is to grant social justice to a destitute woman. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner also not suffering from any physical infirmity passing of the impugned order both the parties have failed to produce any documentary proof qua their monthly income. that in matters of maintenance such as the present one, each spouse tries to depict their own income on the lower exaggerated income of the other spouse. The truth in between. In any event, these are all matters of evidence. otherwise of the allegations and counter- parties can only be determined upon leading of evidence. Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimala (K.) (1991) 2 SCC 375, speaking through Justice “3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife...” Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that: “15. ...While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the visions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation…” The clear purpose of the provision is to grant social justice to admittedly, the petitioner-wife is also not suffering from any physical infirmity. Moreover, at the time of order both the parties have failed to produce any documentary proof qua their monthly income.It is by now a settled trend such as the present one, each spouse tries to depict their own income on the lower side and attempts to show an exaggerated income of the other spouse. The truth usually lies somewhere are all matters of evidence. The truth or -allegations made by both the parties can only be determined upon leading of evidence. As such, it is (K.) , speaking through Justice “3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the and “15. ...While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support or support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the visions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless The clear purpose of the provision is to grant social justice to wife is at the time of order both the parties have failed to produce any w a settled trend such as the present one, each spouse tries attempts to show an lies somewhere The truth or allegations made by both the is RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-3913-2019 neither desirable nor feasible for this Court to interfere at alone return a finding in respect of the contrary assertions made by either of the parties. contained impugned order dated 10. above said findings. made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11. 12. 05.05.2025 rishu 2019 -4- neither desirable nor feasible for this Court to interfere at alone return a finding in respect of the contrary assertions made by either of the parties.The findings of the learned Family Court contained in para 6 (at pages 12 and 13 impugned order dated 14.02.2019, which reads “6. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, it has been averred by the petitioner is Engineer by Profession (B.Tech.IT), working the Trans Glaxia Service Pvt. Ltd. and is getting salary of per annum., besides this he was having ancestral property. On the other hand, respondent husband has averred that applicant-wife is earning handsome salary as she is employed as Software Engineer and she had been teaching newcomers but both the parties have fai produce any documentary evidence regarding their extract income. Admittedly, the respondent and well educated person. More the petitioner-wife is also equally good qualified and can earn to maintain herself but if she is having capacity to maintain herself but she is not earning anything, it will not absolve the respondent-husband to maintain the petitioner wife. However, it is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his legally wedded wife appears to be hale and hearty. Maintenance is to be granted depending upon earning capacity of a husband and not as per actual earnings of the husband Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute the above said findings. In view of the discussion made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed 05.05.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable neither desirable nor feasible for this Court to interfere at this stage, let alone return a finding in respect of the contrary assertions made by either learned Family Court in this regard are 6 (at pages 12 and 13 of the paper-book) of the which reads as under:- So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, it has been averred by the petitioner-wife that respondent-husband is Engineer by Profession (B.Tech.IT), working the Trans Glaxia Service Pvt. Ltd. and is getting salary of ₹12,00,000/- is he was having ancestral property. On the other hand, respondent husband has averred that wife is earning handsome salary ₹1 lac per month as she is employed as Software Engineer and she had been teaching newcomers but both the parties have failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding their extract Admittedly, the respondent-husband is an able bodied and well educated person. More so, it is also not denied that wife is also equally good qualified and can intain herself but if she is having capacity to maintain herself but she is not earning anything, it will not husband to maintain the petitioner- wife. However, it is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his legally wedded wife. Respondent-husband appears to be hale and hearty. Maintenance is to be granted depending upon earning capacity of a husband and not as per actual earnings of the husband……” Counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute the In view of the discussion above, I find no ground is made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No this stage, let alone return a finding in respect of the contrary assertions made by either in this regard are book) of the So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, it has husband is Engineer by Profession (B.Tech.IT), working the Trans is he was having ancestral property. On the other hand, respondent husband has averred that 1 lac per month as she is employed as Software Engineer and she had been led to produce any documentary evidence regarding their extract husband is an able bodied so, it is also not denied that wife is also equally good qualified and can intain herself but if she is having capacity to maintain herself but she is not earning anything, it will not wife. However, it is the bounden duty of the husband to husband appears to be hale and hearty. Maintenance is to be granted depending upon earning capacity of a husband and not as Counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute the no ground is RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.