IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRR(F)-41-2025 Date of Decision: 14.01.2025 Manjeet Kaur and another ..... Petitioners Versus Bhupinder Singh ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ajnala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a case where petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the minor daughter whereas respondent is the husband. He further submitted that marriage took place between petitioner No.1 and the respondent on 18.02.2019 and thereafter, a matrimonial dispute arose between petitioner No.1 and the respondent and the allegations with regard to giving of various dowry articles were made by petitioner No.1. He also submitted that the petitioners had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ajnala in which by way of the impugned order dated 08.11.2024, the aforesaid Court denied to grant any maintenance to petitioner No.1-wife and granted the maintenance of an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to petitioner No.2, who is the minor daughter. He further submitted that findings of the aforesaid order are totally perverse and there was no reason as to why petitioner No.1 has been denied the maintenance and why a meager amount of Rs.2,500/- has been granted to the minor daughter. He also submitted that petitioner No.1 although is in service and is getting salary of an amount of Rs.31,188/- per month but that would not mean that petitioner No.1 cannot be granted the maintenance because she is the wife, whereas the respondent, who is her husband, is able bodied man and is having a permanent job and was earning about Rs.33,497/- per month at the time of passing of the aforesaid order and now he is earning around Rs.43,000/- per month and therefore, petitioner No.1, who is the wife should not have been denied the basic maintenance which ought to have been granted to her. He further submitted that so far as petitioner No.2, who is the minor daughter is concerned, she was granted only Rs.2,500/- per month which is on the lesser side in view of the aforesaid earnings of the husband of petitioner No.1 (Respondent) and therefore, so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the maintenance is required to be enhanced to a reasonable amount as well.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ajnala would show that so far as petitioner No.1, who is the wife is concerned, she has been denied maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by citing specific reasons especially in Para No.12 of the impugned order. The learned Family Judge had considered all the aspects pertaining to the earnings of petitioner No.1 which comes out to be Rs.31,188/- per month and the earning of the respondent-husband comes out to be Rs.33,497/- per month. One of the pertinent reasons for denial of maintenance to petitioner No.1 as so stated in the impugned order is that she had stated that she was not earning anything and was at the mercy of her parents and she did not disclose that she is working and getting the salary but when petitioner No.1 herself stepped into the witness box then in her cross-examination she admitted the aforesaid fact of earning which rather goes to the root of the cause of action for seeking maintenance. She admitted in her cross-examination that she was doing a job in LIC since 2015 and is also getting a salary of around Rs.27,000/- per month which she concealed at the time of filing of the petition for grant of maintenance. Petitioner No.1 also stated in her cross-examination that