JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been preferred against judgment dated 27.02.2025 passed by learned 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 respondent No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month was awarded in favour of respondent No.2- minor son.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner-husband and respondent No.1-wife was solemnised on 20.01.2016 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondents. The learned Family Court vide order dated 27.02.2025 granted maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of respondent No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.2-minor son. 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 Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonipat has wrongly allowed the maintenance to the respondents which is on a very higher side and it has been passed totally on the basis of wrong facts. It is submitted that respondent No.1 left the company of the petitioner without any reasonable cause on 01.06.2016, and refused to return despite the repeated attempts at reconciliation made by the petitioner. Respondent No.1-wife even got registered an false FIR to implicate the petitioner. Qua the quantum of maintenance, it is submitted that respondent No.1 is a well qualified individual possessing degree of M.A. and B.Ed., and is earning Rs.30,000/- per month.

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 destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.'

7. 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,