IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.03.2025 Mahesh ......Petitioner Versus Babita and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant revision petition has been preferred impugning the judgment dated 10.03.2022, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till his attaining the age of majority along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,500/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnised on 23.08.2017 at Hisar as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, one son/respondent No.2 was born on 14.06.2018, who is living with his mother i.e. respondent No.1. However, due to differences, parties started living separately. Consequently, respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner. Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar, after appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide judgment dated 10.03.2022 dismissed the claim of respondent No.1-wife for maintenance, however, petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 from the date of filing of the petition, till his attaining the age of majority, besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,500/-. Dissatisfied with the said judgment, petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has wrongly been burdened with maintenance to be paid to respondent No.2. He further contended that the Family Court has failed to appreciate that respondents could not prove that petitioner has failed to maintain the minor child/respondent No.2, rather it was respondent No.1 who deserted the company of the petitioner without any sufficient cause or reason whereas petitioner was always ready to keep and maintain both the respondents. Learned counsel also contended that maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month granted to respondent No.2, till his attaining the age of majority, is on the higher side and the petitioner is not in a position to pay the same.

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

5. 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. 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 provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation…"

7. In the case of Dr. R.K. Sood v. Usha Rani Sood, 1996(3)

R.C.R. (Civil) 615 this Court observed as under :-

"15. Under the Hindu Law father not only has a moral but even a statutory obligation to maintain his infant children. The scope of his duty is to be regulated directly in relation to the money, status, that the father enjoys. The right of maintenance of a child from