IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.8.2025 Jasvir Singh ......Petitioner Versus Parmiti and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Naveen Jhajholia, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 25.02.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonipat, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.3,000/- per month was awarded in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 07.02.2011, as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies and two children were born from the said wedlock. 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 Family Court vide order dated 25.02.2025 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month in favour of the respondents (Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- 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 contends that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonipat, has allowed the maintenance to the respondents on a very higher side. It has also been submitted that respondent No.1 is well qualified, and is also earning Rs.50,000/- per month being a skilled beautician and is maintaining herself and respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner tried his best to maintain respondent No.1 but she left the company of the petitioner without any just cause. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondents are not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.

4. The present petition is being decided in limine in order to save litigation cost of the respondents and also to save the judicial time of the Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and after perusing the record, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions so advanced.

5. The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse and children are not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage or any other unfortunate circumstance. 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. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.”

7. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479, speaking through Justice Faizan Uddin, 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