JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 17.12.2024 passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month was awarded in favour of petitioner No.1 and Rs. 6,000/- per month to petitioner No.2.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnised on 10.03.2015 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. A female child was born from this wedlock. The respondent and his family members were harassing petitioner No.1 for demand of dowry and the respondent refused to maintain the petitioners without any just cause and the petitioners filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The respondent filed a reply and contested the claim made by the petitioner(s). The learned Family Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 granted maintenance of meagre amount of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of petitioner No.1 and Rs. 6,000/- per month to petitioner No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Court has fallen into error by awarding meager amount as maintenance to the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 is a household lady and has no source of income to earn her livelihood and to maintain her minor child i.e. petitioner No.2. The respondent is working as ALM in Sub Division Babyal and his gross salary is Rs. 44,820/-.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record with his able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 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. Perusal of the record indicates that the respondent is earning gross salary of Rs.44,820/- and as per the ration of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhary Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383 has held that awarding 25% of the husband's salary as maintenance to the wife would be just and proper.

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