CRR(F)-375-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.115 CRR(F)-375-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.03.2025 Gurwinder Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS Sharanjit Kaur ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 17.01.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Giddarbaha, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised in the year 2000. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Court below vide order dated 17.01.2025 granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala has wrongly allowed the maintenance to the respondent which is on a very higher side and it has been passed totally on the basis of wrong facts. He further submits that the Ramandeep Singh 2025.03.21 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-375-2025 (O&M) 2 respondent has been residing separately from the petitioner on her own will and has already received permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/- from him. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance from the petitioner as she is able bodied. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The present petition is decided in limine in order to save litigation cost of the respondent and also to save the judicial time of the Court. 5. The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse and children are not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage. At the same time, a just and careful balance must be struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon to punish the other spouse. The Courts are required to conduct the maintenance proceedings while being alive to the legislative intent behind the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C in its true spirit, which is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. were enacted as a measure to further social justice and protect dependent women, children and parents, which also fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. 6. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)(1991) 2 SCC 375, speaking through Justice Fatima Beevi, opined that 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 Ramandeep Singh 2025.03.21 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-375-2025 (O&M) 3 destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.” . A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479, speaking through Justice Faizan Uddin, opined as follows: “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 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 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.” 7. The rival claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities in order for the Court to arrive at quantum of maintenance which is just and fair in terms of principle of equistatus. The quantum of maintenance must be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid occurrence of the two extremes of the maintenance being either paltry or extravagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The adequacy of the maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse and children being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort. Ramandeep Singh 2025.03.21 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-375-2025 (O&M) 4 8. While dealing with the issue of maintenance in extenso, a two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324, laid down the criteria for determining quantum of maintenance and issued the following directions: VI Final Directions 130. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B -1 to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India: (a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction 131. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that: (i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or setoff, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding: (ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding; (iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding (b) Payment of Interim Maintenance Ramandeep Singh 2025.03.21 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-375-2025 (O&M) 5 132. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country. (c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance 133. For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B III of the judgment. 134. The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case. (d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded 135. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B-IV above. (e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance 136. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C may be applicable. The arder of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI." 9. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court makes it evident that the Court below has thoroughly considered the material placed before it at the time of deciding the application for Ramandeep Singh 2025.03.21 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-375-2025 (O&M) 6 maintenance. The learned Family Court duly observed that the petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed as withdrawn and the restitution of the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- paid by the husband (petitioner herein) to the wife (respondent herein) was never claimed. It was also recorded by the learned Court that the husband-petitioner has agricultural property in his name and might be fetching Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- from the same; and the amount of maintenance so fixed was arrived keeping this, and the factum of the earlier payment of Rs.6,50,000/- in mind. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 20.03.2025 Ramandeep Singh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Ramandeep Singh 2025.03.21 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document