IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (245) CRR(F) No. 195 of 2021 (1)

Sujeeta ......Petitioner Versus Banti .....Respondent (2) CRR(F) No. 491 of 2024(O&M) Banti alias Bunty Lather ......Petitioner Versus Sujeeta .....Respondent Date of Decision: 24.09.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CRR (F)-195-2021 and for the respondent CRR(F)-491-2024.

Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR(F)-491-2024 and for the respondent in CRR(F)-195-2021.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

CRM-15159-2024 in CRR(F) No. 491 of 2024 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 783 days in filing the present petition.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 783 days in filing the present petition, is hereby condoned.

CRR(F) No. 195 of 2021 & CRR(F) No. 491 of 2024

1. This order shall decide the aforementioned two petitions, since the same have been filed challenging the same impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnal.

For brevity, facts are being extracted from CRR(F) No.195 of 2021.

2. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 08.02.2021 passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnal, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the wife. Furthermore, a sum of Rs.

10,000/- was also awarded to her as litigation expenses.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 17.02.2009, as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies at Village Gorgipur, Tehsil and District Karnal. Thereafter, a matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The husband filed a reply and contested the claim made by the wife. The learned Family Court vide order dated 08.02.2021 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of the wife along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the inadequate maintenance, the wife has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife contends that the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnal, has allowed the maintenance to her on the lower side, and the same deserves to be enhanced to at least Rs.20,000/- per month, as the husband is employed as a lineman in the UHBVN Department on a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. Besides this, the husband also owns agriculture land and various properties whereas the petitioner is dependent upon her widow mother. He also submitted that petitioner has suffered mental and physical harassment at the hands of her in laws. In fact, the husband had initiated divorce proceedings against the petitioner, however, the same was dismissed after giving specific findings. Thus, in view of these submissions, the wife is entitled for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the husband contends that already a very high sum of interim maintenance of Rs.11,000/- was awarded to the wife by the Learned ACJM, Karnal, vide order dated 16.09.2017 in a complaint filed by her under the DV Act. Subsequently, a maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month was granted to the wife by way of the impugned order dated 08.02.2021, at the time of final disposal of the maintenance application filed by her. It is submitted that the payment of such hefty sums of maintenance is beyond the means of the respondent- husband, who was placed under suspension w.e.f. 01.08.2017 owing to the pending cases/FIR registered against him at the instance of the wife, leaving him in a position where he is unable to extend financial support.

6. Heard.

7. Vide order dated 21.08.2025, this Court had referred the matter before the Mediation & Conciliation Center of this Cour