The court emphasized the need for balancing maintenance amounts to ensure support for dependents while preventing misuse of maintenance provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 19.02.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month each (total Rs.9,000/-) was awarded in favour the respondents Nos.2 to 4.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was solemnised on 29.01.2007 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Chandigarh and out of the said wedlock three children respondent Nos.2 to 4 were born. 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 19.02.2025 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month each in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 4. 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 learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula, has wrongly allowed the maintenance to respondents Nos.2 to 4 which is on a very higher side and it has been passed totally on the basis of wrong facts. The petitioner is a labourer working in Jain Timber and earning only Rs.10,500/- per month whereas respondent No.1 herself admitted in her cross examination that she is earning Rs.8,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner tried his best to maintain respondent No.1 but she left the company of the petitioner without any just cause. Thus, the respondents are not entitled for any maintenance from the petitioner.

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 respondents 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