IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

130 CRM-M-57187-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.10.2025 SUKHWINDER KUMAR PETITIONER VERSUS JYOTI RANI AND ANOTHER RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.

1. Petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023 has been filed for setting aside order dated 18.08.2025 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa in a complaint under Section

12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of the petition are that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondents-wife and minor child, seeking maintenance allowance from the husband, petitioner before this Court. The application was allowed ex parte on 28.02.2019 by learned ₹

Principal Judge, Family Court, Kurukshetra. A sum of 5,000/- per month ₹ ₹

was awarded to the wife and the child ( 3,000/- to the wife and 2,000/- to the child) with effect from the date of filing of the application besides ₹

5,500/- as litigation expenses. A petition under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was later filed by the wife seeking protection orders under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20 and compensation order under Section 22 of the Act. The petition was contested by the husband. During pendency of the petition, minor daughter of the parties was impleaded as party to the petition vide order dated 14.07.2025.

3. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits of income, assets and liabilities, whereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa directed the husband to pay interim maintenance to the tune of ₹ ₹

4,000/- per month to the wife and 8,000/- per month to the child from the ₹

date of filing of the petition. The husband was also directed to pay 50,000/- in account of the child in view of his statement dated 02.04.2025. It was further ordered that any amount paid by the husband in any other proceedings would be set off from the total amount awarded by the Court. The husband was directed to deposit the maintenance for the wife and child before 10^th of every month. Much aggrieved with the order, the husband has filed a quashing petition, which this Court is now seized of.

4. It has been argued that the husband had been regularly paying maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but some arrears accumulated from the year 2021 onwards, on account of which he made statement in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act that he would ₹ ₹

deposit 50,000/- in the account of the minor child and 8,000/- per month for her studies. Learned counsel submits that the statement was made only to clear arrears of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa wrongly construed the statement to assess interim maintenance; ignoring respective affidavits of income, assets and liabilities filed by the husband and wife. It was submitted that the husband was working as private driver with Dutta Floor Mills, Sirhind earning only

12,000/- per month and the order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa directing him to pay 12,000/- as monthly maintenance to the wife and child was impossible to comply as the petitioner had no other source of income and was also to maintain himself. There was nothing on record to suggest that the husband’s income was more than 12,000/- and assessment of interim maintenance allowance was on much higher side. Maintenance allowance was to be assessed on the basis of the affidavit filed by the husband which learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa failed to consider. Thus, order dated 18.08.2025 deserved to be set aside.

5. It is fairly well-settled that a wife and a child can make claim for maintenance under different statutes and there is no bar to seek maintenance bo