IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

242 CRR(F)-1452-2024(O&M)

Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 Sumit Kumar ...Petitioner(s)

Versus Veena ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Mr. Deepak K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 03.09.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 24.04.2012 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Hisar and no issue was born from the said wedlock. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent 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 Family Court vide order dated 03.09.2024 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.18,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar, has allowed the maintenance to the respondent on a very higher side. The said order has been passed by overlooking the fact that petitioner is earning only Rs.33,500/- and he has to take care of his old age mother. The respondent is a post graduate lady and giving coaching to students and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner tried his best to maintain the respondent but she left the company of the petitioner without any just cause. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondent is not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

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 or any other unfortunate circumstance. 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, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Sec