IMPORTANT POINT
The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental in maintenance proceedings, and its curtailment without just cause is legally impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

1. This order shall decide two criminal revision petitions bearing numbers CRR(F)-343 of 2024 and CRR(F)-1648 of 2024 filed by the rival parties against inter-alia, a common order dated 23.08.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, in case bearing CIS No. MNT/125/1944/2019.

2. In order to ward off any confusion, while appreciating the facts of the case, the parties in the present case are referred to as husband and wife, respectively.

3. Facts germane to the adjudication of the present case are that the marriage between the parties was performed on 25.09.2006. Out of their wedlock twin daughters were born on 25.06.2007. In view of the differences having arisen between the husband and wife, both started living separately and both the daughters of the couple have been residing with the wife.

4. The wife along with both the minor daughters, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the Family Court, Ludhiana seeking maintenance for their sustenance. The said maintenance petition was finally decided by the Family Court vide impugned order dated 23.08.2023, thereby granting maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife; and Rs.30,000/- per month each to both the daughters.

5. The husband by way of revision petition bearing No. CRR(F)-1648-2023 has challenged the impugned order dated 23.08.2023. Whereas, the wife (along with the twin daughters) has preferred the revision petition bearing No. CRR(F)-343-2024 seeking modification of the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 for enhancement of the maintenance amount so awarded.

6. On behalf of the husband, it is argued that the learned trial Court, during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., had improperly, wrongly and illegally curtailed his right to present/lead his defence and his right to cross-examine the wife, who appeared as PW-3. It is submitted that curtailment of the right of the husband to lead his defence has significantly impaired his valuable right and as such the entire proceedings conducted by the Family Court are vitiated by procedural illegality. The curtailment placed on the husband’s defence has resulted in the grant of relief to the wife and both daughters on the basis of inaccurate & misleading financial details submitted before the Court, thereby causing a windfall in the amount of maintenance granted. It is submitted that the Family Court failed to take into account the husband’s own financial obligations, including dependency of his elderly parents on him. It is further submitted that the Family Court has committed material illegality in not considering the earnings of the wife while awarding the maintenance to her. It is argued that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is not sustainable as it is not based on any sound reasoning and appreciation of material available on the record of the case.

7. While laying a challenge to the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Family Court, the husband has also questioned the legality and sustainability of various orders passed by the Family Court in proximity to the final order dated 23.08.2023. The challenge is primarily based on the contention that the Family Court imposed an onerous condition on the husband, requiring him to clear 50% of the interim maintenance & subsequently 65% of the total outstanding amount within a very short period. The stringent requirement, according to the husband, was unmanageable and led to the striking off of his defence, thereby prejudicing his case.

8. To the contrary on behalf of the wife, while refuting the submissions made on behalf of the husband, it is submitted that there is no procedural illegality committed by the Family Court in passing the impugned order. The defence of the husband was rightly struck off by the Family Court, as he failed to adhere to the interim maintenance passed by the Family Court. It is further submitted that the averments made on behalf of the husband in his pleadin