IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-113-2025(O&M)

Date of Decision: 24.01.2025 Parveen Bhatia ...Petitioner(s)

Versus Rashmi and another ...Respondent(s)

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

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

CRM-2942-2025 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the present revision petition.

In view of the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. The delay of 36 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

CRR(F)-113-2025

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 18.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak, in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby interim maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondents.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was solemnised on 11.02.2018 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies at Rohtak and out of the said wedlock one child namely Samarth Bhatia was born on 10.10.2019, who is in the care and custody of respondent No.1. 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 Court below vide order dated 18.09.2024 granted interim maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per month in favour of the respondents. 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 wife of the petitioner has left his company without any justifiable cause on 18.04.2019 and did not even attend the proceedings of petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioner and due to this an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the petitioner by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonepat. The respondents are living separately from her husband with her own will and wish without any sufficient reason. Hence, the respondent cannot claim maintenance in view of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Reliance has been placed upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in FAO No.3658 of 2018 titled as “Nitin Kumar Vs. Madhu Sharma” and orders of passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in cases bearing CRR-2589-2012 titled as “Suryasnata Das and another vs. Nishikant Das” and CRR(F)-466-2024 titled as “Mini Phogat and others vs. Karminder”.

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 interim 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. Sectio