IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

243 CRR(F)-275-2023(O&M)

Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 JAMIL AHMED ...Petitioner(s)

Versus KHURSHIDAN AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arjun Attri, Advocate for respondents.

*****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nuh, Camp Court at Ferozpur Jhirka, in MNT No.239-2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the petition filed by the respondents has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay a total maintenance allowance of Rs.12,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized about 26 years ago according to Muslim rites and ceremonies and five children were born from the said wedlock. Out of them, two children are married, while three are still minors. About five years prior to the filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner solemnized a second marriage. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes ensued between the couple, and an application was I agree to specified pomrtioonsved by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Family Court vide impugned order granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of the respondents (i.e. Rs.9,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.3). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Family Court, Nuh, has allowed the maintenance to the respondents on a very higher side. The said order has been passed by overlooking the financial capacity of the petitioner and the fact that he has been maintaining his children from both marriages. It is contended that the marriage between the parties was dissolved on 13.03.2012, and respondent No.1 was paid a one-time settlement of Rs.13 lakhs. Even his ancestraral home was given to respondent No.1 by the petitioner to reside in. Further, respondent No.1 also got re-married to one Munsharif on 11.01.2018, a fact which was deliberately concealed while filing the petition, and which is substantiated by the depositions of RW-2 and RW-3 as well as the duly executed Nikahnama dated 11.01.2018. Despite this, the learned Family Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month, ignoring the petitioner’s financial capacity, his obligations towards aged parents, and the fact that he is already maintaining his children from both marriages. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 is working, the children are earning, and all their expenses, including educational costs, have been borne by the petitioner. In fact a petition under Domestic Violence Act was also filed by respondent No.1 and that was dismissed by the Court of learned JMIC, Faridabad on 07.06.2018. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondents are not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that no valid divorce has ever been proved by the petitioner. No talaqnama was ever communicated to the respondent No.1, nor was any settlement or mehr amount paid in lieu of such alleged divorce. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the respondent No.1 was divorced, the law is well-settled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. until her remarriage, as held in Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan (2010) 1 SCC 666. The allegation of remarriage with one Munsharif, who is her dewar, is false, outrageous, and unsupported by reliable evidence, as no valid nikahnama or competent witness has been proved on re