Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Satish Kumar —Petitioner
versus
Kamaljit Kaur & Anr. —Respondents
CRM-M-17695-2015
Decided on 8.7.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Maintenance includes entitlement to food, clothing and shelter to wife, children and parents.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Maintenance—Grant of—Maintenance includes entitlement to food, clothing and shelter to wife, children and parents—This is provided as a measure of social justice and natural duty of a husband to maintain his wife and children when they are unable to maintain themselves—Object behind this provision is to prevent vagrancy by compelling husband to pay maintenance to wife and children who are unable to support themselves—Once respondent-wife has made specific averment with regard to capacity of petitioner, then onus shifts upon petitioner-husband to prove that he does not have sufficient means to provide maintenance—Petitioner has not brought on record income tax returns and has not rebutted averments and this is a case of bare denial—Estranged wife and minor child cannot be reduced to destitute before deciding main petition seeking maintenance for herself and her child—There is no evidence on record that respondent-wife has any independent source of income—Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 6, 9, 10 and 11)
Result: Petition dismissed.
Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘the Code’) assailing the order dated 05.09.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar whereby respondent No.1-wife and respondent No.2-minor son were awarded interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- per month, respectively, from the date of filing of application along with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- and the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.09.2014 has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that marriage between petitioner-husband and respondent No.1-wife was solemnized on 12.06.2006 at H.No.231/14, Labour Colony, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Jalandhar and a son-respondent No.2 was born from the said wedlock on 03.09.2007. The relations between the parties were not cordial as a result of which the respondents herein i.e. wife and minor son filed petition under Section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance from the petitioner-husband with the averments that the petitioner-husband has neglected to maintain them and treated respondent No.1-wife with cruelty and she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the petitioner-husband on 01.08.2007. Along with the petition under Section 125 of the Code, the respondents herein filed an application seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner-husband. Vide impugned order dated 05.09.2014, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar disposed of the said application awarding Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2- minor son from the date of filing of application alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-husband filed revision which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide impugned order dated 21.01.2015. Hence, this petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.1-wife has not produced any documentary proof which could substantiate her averments with regard to income of the petitioner-husband. He further contended that there is no evidence on record with regard to her standard of living in the matrimonial home and also in her parental home. Both the courts below have erred while passing the impugned orders and failed to consider the earning capacity of respondent No.1-husband while awarding interim maintenance.
5. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Both the courts below have considered the prima facie averments brought on record. It is admitted fact that the petitioner married respondent No.1 and from the said wedlock, respondent No.2- minor son was born. The concept of maintenance in India is covered under Section 125 of the Code as well as under personal laws. The maintenance includes entitlement to food, clothing and shelter to the wife, children and parents. This is provided as a measure of social justice and natural duty of a husband to maintain his wife and children when they are unable to maintain themselves. The object behind this provision is to prevent vagrancy by compelling the husband to pay maintenance to the wife and children who are unable to support themselves. Although, there is no specific provision in the Code with regard to interim maintenance, however, the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts in catena of judgments have held that since finalization of maintenance petition takes time, interim maintenance can be awarded by the Court as an interim measure.
7. In Gaurav Sondhi v. Diya Sondhi, 120 (2005) DLT 426. the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has laid down the following guidelines while granting interim maintenance:
“4. The matrimonial courts should follow the following procedure while granting i
