SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Anju – Respondent
CRR(F)-507-2019
Decided On : 13-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate, for Mr. Virender Soni, Advocate, for the Appellant.

The purpose of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is to prevent destitution and vagrancy, and the entitlement to maintenance is not solely based on the actions of the parties involved.

Headnote:

Interim Maintenance - Family Law - The court upheld the grant of interim maintenance to the respondent-wife, considering the petitioner's employment and the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order granting interim maintenance to the respondent-wife, arguing that she was not entitled to maintenance due to her actions of leaving the matrimonial home and occupying the petitioner's parents' house and agricultural land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the interim maintenance was granted based on the petitioner's employment and the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the grant of interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.

Issues: Interim maintenance, entitlement of maintenance, petitioner's responsibility towards parents and personal loan.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C and the purpose of maintenance to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The petitioner's employment and the circumstances of the case were also taken into account.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the grant of interim maintenance to the respondent-wife was upheld.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 01.05.2019, passed by the learned Family Court, Hisar, whereby the respondent-wife has been granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Family Court has fallen in error in directing the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. He submits that the respondent-wife was habitual in leaving the matrimonial home and she never adjusted with the petitioner-husband. He submits that she deserted the matrimonial home of her own will, thus, she is not entitled for maintenance as prayed for. He submits that she not even shunted out the petitioner's parents from their house, but also illegally occupied the house as well as the agricultural land of the father of the petitioner, for which his father has filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. He submits that the petitioner has the responsibility of his old aged parents and has to pay monthly installments of Rs.12,633/- on account of personal loan, but the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the same and, thus, has arrived at a wrong conclusion in granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, which deserves to be set aside.

Heard.

3. It is apparent from the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and on perusal of the record of the case, that the impugned order under challenge pertains to the interim maintenance granted to the respondentwife, which was granted way back on 01.05.2019. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent-wife on 11.02.2008. As per the contentions of respondent-wife, the petitioner-husband is employed as JBT Teacher and getting a handsome salary of Rs.60,000/- per month. The learned Family Court has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant record of the case. In view of the same, the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- granted, in the opinion of this Court suffers from no illegality. The petitioner is an able bodied man. The respondent-wife, even if well qualified, is not dis-entitled from claiming her legal maintenance. The provisions of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, and as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, is to prevent the destitution and vagrancy. In the overall facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top