IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

112 CRR(F)-666-2025(O&M)

Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 MALKIAT KAUR ...Petitioner(s)

Versus HARNEK SINGH ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Mr. Anoop Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (Oral)

The present petition has been preferred against the order dated

01.02.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Moga, whereby the maintenance application filed by the petitioner under Section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the year 1972 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies, and four children were born out of the said wedlock. It has been averred that the relationship between the parties remained cordial until the year 2015, whereafter, the respondent started neglecting the petitioner without any justifiable reason and abandoned the petitioner. Left with no means of support, the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance. The respondent contested the claim by filing a reply. However, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Moga, vide order dated 01.02.2025, dismissed the maintenance application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

KAVITA NAIN

2025.05.08 09:56

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent has been willfully neglecting the petitioner since 2015 and is now cohabiting with another woman. Despite repeated requests and panchayats, the respondent has refused to provide any maintenance, asserting that the petitioner should depend on her sons or return to her parental home. The petitioner, an elderly woman with no source of income or property, is unable to maintain herself and has been left at the mercy of others. In contrast, the ₹

respondent is an able-bodied man earning over 2,00,000 annually from leased agricultural land.

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.

KAVITA NAIN

2025.05.08 09:56

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 d