IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-F-1212 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.05.2025 Rimpu Sharma ......Petitioner Versus Nisha and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 06.06.2024, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Panipat, vide which petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month each to respondents No.2 and 3 as interim maintenance.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 07.03.2010 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, two children i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 were born. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondents. The learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 06.06.2024 has awarded Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month each as interim maintenance to respondents No.2 and 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a very exorbitant amount has been awarded as interim maintenance which is not in consonance with the actual income of the petitioner. The petitioner has already submitted his affidavit declaring his assets and liabilities and according to his affidavit, his income is Rs.42,881/- per month and his monthly expenditure is Rs.35,000/-. He further submits that petitioner is also paying loan amount out of the said income. Thus, the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court to the respondents is on the higher side.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. 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 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 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….."

7. Further, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479 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 provisi