IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 Pradhuman ...Petitioner(s)

Versus Seema and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Ms. Sumati Jund, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

CRM-24340-2025 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed for condonation of delay of 123 days in filing the present revision petition.

In view of the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. The delay of 123 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

CRR(F)-913-2025(O&M)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 20.11.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani, in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby interim maintenance of Rs.13,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/-

each to respondents No.2 and 3) was awarded in favour of the respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was solemnised on 18.01.2014 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of the said wedlock two children, respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein, were born. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple, and the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance, which was duly contested by the petitioner. The learned Court thereafter, vide order dated 20.11.2024, granted interim maintenance of Rs.13,000/- per month in favour of the respondents (i.e. Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/- each to respondents No.2 and 3). 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 and has since been residing separately with the children on her own will and wish without any sufficient reason. Respondent No.1 is well qualified and is capable of maintaining herself. Furthermore, owing to the constant disputes between the parties, the petitioner had to tender his resignation and he therefore does not have the means to provide such a hefty sum as maintenance to the respondents.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with her 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(s) 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. 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,