IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225 CRR(F)-870-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 Gaurav Majhotra ...Petitioner Versus Nisha ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jagatpal Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.

*****

K IRTI SINGH , J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been preferred against order dated 21.03.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pathankot in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month was awarded. Furthermore, a lumpsum amount of Rs.7500/- was also awarded to the respondent as litigation expenses.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 07.12.2019 according as per Hindu rites at Pathankot. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple, and the respondent 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 21.03.2024, granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. 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 marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was simple one without any demand or entrustment of dowry. It is further contended that the wife of the petitioner has left his company without any justifiable cause and has since been residing separately and has repeatedly refused to reside with the petitioner despite attempts at reconciliation. Further, the respondent herself is highly educated and hence cannot claim maintenance from the petitioner in view of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. On the other hand, in order to rebut the case the case of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has argued that the learned Court below while granting the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent has rightly assessed the income of the petitioner of Rs.39,465/- per month. He further argued that the petitioner has miserably failed to produce any material on record with regard to the income of the respondent by any means, therefore, present revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard.

6. Upon request of learned counsel for the parties, the present matter was sent to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court for working out a possible amicable settlement and thereafter the case has been received back being a non-starter case.

7. The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse 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.

8. 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.”

9. 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