IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (225) CRR(F) No. 138 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 30.10.2025 Aman Gollen ......Petitioner Versus Shailja and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Amandeep Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Akshat Mittal, Advocate for the respondents.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

CRR(F)-41549-2025 The application is allowed as prayed for. Annexures A-1 to A-3 are taken on record.

CRR(F) No. 138 of 2025 (O&M)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 10.12.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnal, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondents. Furthermore, a sum of Rs. 7,000/-

was also awarded to the respondents as litigation expenses.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 18.1.2019 and a female child was born from the said wedlock. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondents. The learned Family Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month in favour of the respondents along with Rs. 7,000/- as litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Family Court concerned has allowed the maintenance to the respondent on a very higher side. Further the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the facts that respondent No. 1 has been earning Rs. 50,000/- per month from a tuition centre. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court in the impugned order, while relying upon the immovable assets of the father and brother of the petitioner, has wrongly assessed the income of the petitioner, without taking into account his financial capacity. Further, the father of respondent No. 1 while appearing into the witness box as PW-2 has failed to produce any proof either with regard to the income of the petitioner, or qua his ownership over three showrooms and 04 and half acres of land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the learned Court below while wrongly relied upon the documents, which are not exhibited, has concluded that the petitioner is running a business of brick-kiln. It is further submitted that the petitioner tried his best to maintain the respondent No. 1 but she left the company of the petitioner along with minor child, without any just cause. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Rights. However, since respondent No. 1 got the said petition transferred from District Kaithal to District Karnal, therefore, the petitioner could not pursue the said petition, 2025.11.04 16:11 and the same was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondents are not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the present petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.

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. The Courts are required to conduct the maintenance 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 p