JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

CRM-14091-2024

1. Prayer in the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 74 days in filing the revision petition.

2. In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed and delay of 74 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

CRR(F)-466-2024

3. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Sonipat, vide which, while partly allowing the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each was awarded to be paid to petitioners No.2 & 3 along with additional amount of Rs.500/- per month each to them.

4. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 11.12.2012 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of this wedlock, two children i.e. one daughter namely Himani Singh and one son namely Ranveer Singh were born. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the petitioners filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.3.00 lacs per month. The respondent filed a reply and contested the claim made by the petitioners. The learned Family Court, vide order dated 07.10.2023, while declining grant of maintenance to petitioner No.1, granted interim maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per month each in favour of petitioners No.2 & 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record with his able assistance, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

6. The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is 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 falls 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.) Vs. Veeraswamy (K.) (1991) 2 SCC 375, speaking through Justice Fatima Beevi, opined 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."

8. Further, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. 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, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."

9. Another objective the legislature has s