IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

234 CRR(F)-66-2022(O&M)

Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 Tarsem Singh ...Petitioner(s)

Versus Harwinder Kaur @ Harbans Kaur ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Davinder Singh Khurana, Advocate for Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 17.12.2021 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bathinda, in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby interim maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the father of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised around 22 years ago. However, the respondent left the company of his father, and after he passed away, moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Court below vide order dated 17.12.2021 granted interim maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month in favour of the respondent. 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 respondent abandoned him in the care and custody of his father who unfortunately passed away on 22.06.2012, without any sufficient or justifiable cause. The deceased father of the petitioner had, during his life time, voluntarily and with sound mind executed a legal and valid Will dated 17.06.2011 in favour of the petitioner, bequeathing his entire moveable and immovable properties to him. Further, the respondent is an able bodied person who is capable of earning her livelihood by means of knitting, stitching and sewing etc. Hence, the respondent cannot claim maintenance in view of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was the legally wedded wife of the father of the petitioner, after whose unfortunate death the suit property was to be inherited in equal share on the basis of natural succession. However, a Will was allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner, and the same is illegal, null and void, being a forged and fabricated one. Moreover, the petitioner is an able bodied person cultivating 20 acres of land and also earning income from cattle, a combination of earnings from which totals to Rs.60,000/- per month whereas the respondent has no source of income.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. 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.

7. 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. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It pro