IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.10.2025 Sandeep ......Petitioner Versus Renu Bala .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Kashish, Advocate for the respondent.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 19.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar, in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 02.6.2020 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies and no issue was born from the said wedlock. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent filed a petition 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 concerned vide order dated 19.10.2023 granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- per month in favour of the Gurpreet Singh respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court

2025.11.04 16:11 by filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Family Court concerned has allowed the interim maintenance to the respondent on a very higher side, without taking into consideration the salary slip of the petitioner for the last 3-4 months. It is further submitted that though the respondent has alleged that the petitioner has been drawing a salary of Rs. 70,000/- per month, besides is having rental income of Rs. One lac per month from the immovable property. However, neither any evidence with regard to the above said income, nor any description qua the said immovable property has been placed on record. Further, the petitioner in his reply to the application for interim maintenance has specifically stated that the respondent is capable to earn her livelihood. However, the said fact was not taken into consideration by the learned Family Court concerned. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondent is not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent opposes the present petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and after perusing the record, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions so advanced.

6. The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse and children are not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage or any other unfortunate circumstance. Provisions of interim maintenance pending adjudication of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a way of granting immediate relief to the aggrieved. The Courts are required to conduct the maintenance

2025.11.04 16:11 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.

7. 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.”

8. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 4