JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 02.09.2023 passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonipat, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent(s).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnised on 11.12.2017 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. A female child was born from the wedlock. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent(s) 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 02.09.2023 granted maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of the respondent(s). 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, Sonipat has wrongly allowed the maintenance to the respondent(s) which is on a very higher side and it has been passed totally on the basis of wrong facts. He further submits that respondent No.1 is a quarrelsome lady and since the very first day of her marriage, she started pressuring the petitioner to live separate from his mother and sisters in Delhi but the petitioner always denied to this demand of respondent No.1, on which, respondent No.1 always tried pick fights with the mother of the petitioner who is a widow. He also submits that while considering the application for maintenance learned trial Court on the basis of presumptions wrongly allowed the maintenance petition and the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.8,000/- every month as maintenance to the respondents.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 has opposed the present petition and submits that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order after duly considering the income affidavits of the parties.

5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.

6. 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.

7. 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 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 provi