IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-1509-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 JASVIR SINGH ...Petitioner Versus KARAMJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Mr. Beant Singh Seemar, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been preferred against order dated 02.08.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Moga in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.6,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.2) was awarded. Furthermore, a sum of Rs.4,000/- was also awarded to the respondents as litigation expenses.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was solemnised on 05.04.2018 according to the Sikh rites and ceremonies and out of the said wedlock one child, respondent No.2 herein, was born. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple, and the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance which was duly contested by the petitioner. The learned Court thereafter, vide order dated 02.08.2025, granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the wife of the petitioner has left his company without any justifiable cause and has since been residing separately with the minor child on her own will and wish without any reason, repeatedly refusing to reside with the petitioner despite attempts at reconciliation, including through Panchayat settlement and a decree passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a man of limited means, earning a meager amount of Rs.8,000/- per month, out of which he also has to maintain his elder father. The petitioner is also not able bodied. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to any maintenance in view of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The present petition is decided in limine in order to save litigation cost of the respondent and also to save the judicial time of the Court.

5. 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. At the same time, a just and careful balance must be struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon to punish the other spouse. 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 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.

6. 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.”

7. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479, speaking through Justice Faizan Uddin, opined as follows:

“15. ... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the