IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-995-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 27.10.2025 Nikhil Sharma ...... Petitioner V/S Ruchi Sharma and Anr.

..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Hitesh Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)

CRM-M-26543-2025 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 04 days in filing the instant revision.

In view of the averments made in the application, in the light of the settled position that a party should not be denied access to justice on hyper technical grounds and in the interest of justice, taking a lenient view, delay of 04 days in filing the instant revision is condoned.

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

CRR(F)-995-2025 (O&M)

1. Petitioner Nikhil Sharma filed revision against impugned order dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, vide which defence of petitioner-husband (respondent in the main case) has been struck off for not complying the order dated 08.10.2024.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that on account of matrimonial dispute respondents i.e. Ruchi Sharma (wife) and Kiara (minor daughter) filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance allowance (Annexure P-1). On service of notice, petitioner-husband appeared before learned Family Court and filed reply dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure P-2). The learned Family Court passed order dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) vide which respondent- husband was directed to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as provisional maintenance to his wife till further orders and the matter was sent for mediation. The matter could not be resolved. During this period, petitioner-husband paid Rs.10,000/- in January 2025, another sum of Rs.10,000/- in February 2025. He was directed to make the balance payment and on his failure to pay the same, his defence was wrongly struck off vide order dated 08.04.2025, which is challenged in the present revision. It is pointed out that concerned Family Court was insisting to make payment of interim maintenance and without considering the merits, impugned order dated 08.04.2025 has been passed, which will cause great prejudice to the case of petitioner.

3. Factual position is clear from the contents of criminal revision as well as the documents annexed therewith. No purpose would be served by giving notice to the respondent.

4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. On filing of present criminal revision, petitioner was directed to disclose the arrears of maintenance as well as the time period required to clear the same. The petitioner did not clarify the aforesaid factual position. The contents of revision indicate that petitioner-husband has paid Rs.10,000/- each on two occasions as detailed in the grounds of criminal revision. It is not disputed that on account of matrimonial dispute, his wife Ruchi Sharma along with her minor child filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-1). This petition is contested by petitioner-husband and he filed his written reply which is Annexure P-2. Before the disposal of application for grant of interim maintenance, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram passed order dated 08.10.2024 granting provisional maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.1-wife till further orders. During this period, the matter was also referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre to explore the possibility of compromise but it failed. The contents of impugned order dated 08.04.2025 indicate that despite given sufficient opportunities, there was no effort on the part of present petitioner to clear his arears. The conduct of present petitioner has remained same even during the pendency of present criminal revision. Learned counsel for petitioner confirmed that petitioner is doing a private job and getting salary of Rs.25,000/- per mo