IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 07.01.2025 Surender, Advocate ..... Petitioner VERSUS Smt. Sita and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 17.09.2024 passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak, in the proceedings under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., vide which the maintenance awarded in favour of the respondents has been enhanced to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 06.04.2002 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One son i.e. respondent No.2 namely, Shivam was born on 03.05.2005 and he is with respondent No.1. The petitioner and respondent No.1 is residing separately since 2009. The respondent No.1 filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C in the year 2012 and the learned Family Court, Rohtak vide judgment dated 13.07.2015 granted total maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents (Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.2-son). The respondent No.1 filed an application for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on

02.04.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned lower Court only relied upon the change in the rate of inflation and did not consider any material substantial change in the income of the petitioner. It has also been argued that the petitioner is the only son who is having liability of his old aged parents.

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. Another objective the legislature has sought to achieve by this provision is to provide interim maintenance pendente lite to the applicant spouse during proceedings emerging out of matrimonial disputes so that the she/he can maintain herself/himself, have sufficient funds to pursue the litigation, and not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse.

6. The rival claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities in order for the Court to arrive at quantum of interim maintenance which is just and fair in terms of principle of equistatus. The quantum of interim maintenance must be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid occurrence of the two extremes of the interim maintenance being either paltry or extravagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The adequacy of the interim maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse and children being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort.

7. While dealing with the issue of maintenance in extenso, a two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324, laid down the criteria for determining quantum of maintenance and issued the following directions:

VI Final Directions

130. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B -1 to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:

(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction

131. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:

(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider a