IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-111-2025(O&M)

Date of Decision: 24.01.2025 Rakesh ...Petitioner(s)

Versus Neeru and another ...Respondent(s)

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

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

CRM-2790-2025 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed for condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the present revision petition.

In view of the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. The delay of 54 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

CRR(F)-111-2025

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 28.08.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Sonipat, vide which the application filed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) [now Section 146 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)] was allowed ex-parte and maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs.6000/- per month (Rs.3000/- per month to each respondent) awarded in favour of the respondents to Rs.25,000/- per month i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent No.2.

2. Learned Family Court, vide judgment dated 10.11.2012, granted maintenance allowance of Rs.6000/- per month in favour of the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 146 of BNSS) seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance and learned Family Court, vide impugned judgment dated 28.08.2024, enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.6,000/- per month to Rs.25,000/- per month in favour of the respondents (Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent No.2. 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 respondent No.1 left the company of the petitioner without justifiable cause. It is further contended that learned Family Court, proceeded against the petitioner ex-parte and without appreciating the material brought on record, enhanced the maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to Rs.25,000/-

per month, which is not in consonance with actual income of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned Family 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.

5. 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.

6. 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. (now Section 144 of BNSS) 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. (now Section 144 of BNSS) 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

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