CRR(F)-310 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Smt. Asmina and others Sajid CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - NAMIT KUMAR, J. 1. maintenance allowance granted to the petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nuh, vide order dated 19.12.2024. 2. about 14/15 years ago, petitioner No.1 was married with the respondent according to Muslim rites and customs. Thereafter, they resided together and out of the said wedlock five children i.e. to 6 were born. harassing petitioner No.1 for demand of dowry as they were not happy with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. was maltreated and given beatings. No.1 was thrown out 310 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-310 Date of decision: Smt. Asmina and others Versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Nafeesh Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioners. NAMIT KUMAR, J. This revision petition has been filed maintenance allowance granted to the petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nuh, vide order 19.12.2024. Brief facts of the case as averred by the petitioner about 14/15 years ago, petitioner No.1 was married with the respondent according to Muslim rites and customs. Thereafter, they resided together and out of the said wedlock five children i.e. were born. However, respondent and his fa harassing petitioner No.1 for demand of dowry as they were not happy with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. was maltreated and given beatings. It is further averred that petitioner No.1 was thrown out of her matrimonial home and the respondent -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 310 of 2025 Date of decision: 22.09.2025 ......Petitioners ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Advocate, This revision petition has been filed for enhancement of maintenance allowance granted to the petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nuh, vide order as averred by the petitioners are that about 14/15 years ago, petitioner No.1 was married with the respondent according to Muslim rites and customs. Thereafter, they resided together and out of the said wedlock five children i.e. petitioners No.2 However, respondent and his family members started harassing petitioner No.1 for demand of dowry as they were not happy with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. Petitioner No.1 It is further averred that petitioner of her matrimonial home and the respondent RAVINDER SINGH 2025.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-310 performed second marriage without giving divorce to petitioner No.1. Consequently, petitioners filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance be proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.10.2023. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nuh, vide impugned order dated 19.12.2024 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/ petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/ from the date of filing of the petition till they become major along with litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/ 3. maintenance of Rs.8,000/ Court to the p failed to appreciate that respondent is an able driver by profession. Apart from that, he has acres of agricultural land and his monthly income is more than Rs.50,000/ other hand, petitioner No.1 has no source of income. It is submitted that respondent may be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.35,000/ month to the petitioners. 4. perused the record. 5. Section 125 of the CrPC is to provide succour to those wives who are unable to maintain themselves and have no sufficient income for their sustenance. the Court has to take into consideration the position and status of the 310 of 2025 performed second marriage without giving divorce to petitioner No.1. Consequently, petitioners filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance from the respondent. Respondent was ordered to ceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.10.2023. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nuh, vide impugned order dated 19.12.2024 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/ petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month each from the date of filing of the petition till they become major along with litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month granted by the learned Family Court to the petitioners is on the lower side. The Family Court has failed to appreciate that respondent is an able driver by profession. Apart from that, he has acres of agricultural land and his monthly income is more than Rs.50,000/ other hand, petitioner No.1 has no source of income. It is submitted that respondent may be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.35,000/ month to the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner perused the record. The intention and objective of the legislature in enacting Section 125 of the CrPC is to provide succour to those wives who are unable to maintain themselves and have no sufficient income for their sustenance. However, while determining the amount of m the Court has to take into consideration the position and status of the -2- performed second marriage without giving divorce to petitioner No.1. Consequently, petitioners filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the respondent. Respondent was ordered to ceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.10.2023. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nuh, vide impugned order dated 19.12.2024 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month to each to petitioners No.2 to 6 from the date of filing of the petition till they become major along with Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the per month granted by the learned Family etitioners is on the lower side. The Family Court has failed to appreciate that respondent is an able-bodied person and is a driver by profession. Apart from that, he has acres of agricultural land and his monthly income is more than Rs.50,000/- per month and on the other hand, petitioner No.1 has no source of income. It is submitted that respondent may be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.35,000/- per I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and The intention and objective of the legislature in enacting Section 125 of the CrPC is to provide succour to those wives who are unable to maintain themselves and have no sufficient income for their However, while determining the amount of maintenance, RAVINDER SINGH the Court has to take into consideration the position and status of the 2025.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-310 parties, reasonable needs of the claimant and overall financial position of the husband. 6. not appear before proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.10.2023. Petitioner No.1 filed her income and assets affidavits, showing her income and qualification as ‘nil’. assertion that respondent is earning Rs.50,000/ possessing evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. Court while Rs.15,000/- Rs.8,000/- to the petitioners 7. petitioner No.1 (wife) and Rs.1,000/ totalling Rs.8,000/ persons are much higher, it is equally true that the quantum of maintenance must be commensurate with the paying capacity of the respondent. Further, maintenance c has to be realistic and practical, balancing the needs of the claimants with the income of the husband. 8. limited jurisdiction, which can only be exercised, (i) below have acted beyond jurisdiction vested in them or (ii) have not exercised the same diligently and (iii) have exercised illegally. 310 of 2025 parties, reasonable needs of the claimant and overall financial position of the husband. In the present case, despite service as the respondent did not appear before the Family Court, therefore, he was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.10.2023. Petitioner No.1 filed her income and assets affidavits, showing her income and qualification as ‘nil’. However, petitioner No.1 failed to prove that respondent is earning Rs.50,000/ several acres of agricultural land. evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. while considering the income of the respondent as - per month, rightly awarded monthly maintenance of to the petitioners, which cannot be said on the lower side. The Family Court awarded Rs.3,000/ petitioner No.1 (wife) and Rs.1,000/- to petitioners No totalling Rs.8,000/- per month. While it is true that the needs of six persons are much higher, it is equally true that the quantum of maintenance must be commensurate with the paying capacity of the respondent. Further, maintenance cannot be an illusory exercise has to be realistic and practical, balancing the needs of the claimants with the income of the husband. This Court while exercising its revisional powers has very limited jurisdiction, which can only be exercised, (i) below have acted beyond jurisdiction vested in them or (ii) have not exercised the same diligently and (iii) have exercised illegally. -3- parties, reasonable needs of the claimant and overall financial position espite service as the respondent did the Family Court, therefore, he was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.10.2023. Petitioner No.1 filed her income and assets affidavits, showing her income and etitioner No.1 failed to prove her that respondent is earning Rs.50,000/- per month and is several acres of agricultural land. No documentary evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. Thus, the Family considering the income of the respondent as Rs.14,000/- to per month, rightly awarded monthly maintenance of , which cannot be said on the lower side. The Family Court awarded Rs.3,000/- per month to to petitioners No.2 to 6 (children), per month. While it is true that the needs of six persons are much higher, it is equally true that the quantum of maintenance must be commensurate with the paying capacity of the annot be an illusory exercise but has to be realistic and practical, balancing the needs of the claimants This Court while exercising its revisional powers has very limited jurisdiction, which can only be exercised, (i) when the Courts below have acted beyond jurisdiction vested in them or (ii) have not RAVINDER SINGH exercised the same diligently and (iii) have exercised illegally. The 2025.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-310 Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCC 460, has held that revisional p and only in exceptional cases. 9. does not suffer from perversity or illegality. The maintenance awarded is based on a fair assessment of the respondent’s earning capacity. Accordingly, I find no ground to exercise the this Court. 10. 22.09.2025 R.S. 310 of 2025 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 , has held that revisional powers should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order does not suffer from perversity or illegality. The maintenance awarded is based on a fair assessment of the respondent’s earning capacity. Accordingly, I find no ground to exercise the Dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable -4- Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 owers should be exercised sparingly In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order does not suffer from perversity or illegality. The maintenance awarded is based on a fair assessment of the respondent’s earning capacity. Accordingly, I find no ground to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2025.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document