110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.11.2025 H.C. SUKHVINDER SINGH PETITIONER VERSUS RUPINDER KAUR RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

1. Order dated 16.09.2025 of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, partly allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been impugned in this revision petition. Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana directed the petitioner to pay a ₹

sum of 15,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance from the date ₹

of filing the petition till 01.04.2021, 10,000/- per month from 01.04.2021 ₹

to 31.03.2023 and further 15,000/- per month from 01.04.2023 onwards.

₹

The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of 21,000/- towards litigation expenses. Respondent was also held entitled to increase of maintenance at a flat rate of 5% per annum after lapse of one year from the date of passing of the order.

2. A few facts may be noticed. Respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance allowance claiming that the parties were married on 12.10.2008 at Ludhiana, as per Sikh rites and ceremonies and were blessed with two daughters, Divjot Kaur and Prableen Kaur, who were living under the care and custody of the respondent. Despite sufficient dowry given, the husband and his family members taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry and treated her with cruelty. Demands of cash, dowry were raised. On several occasions, she was mercilessly beaten and thrown out of the matrimonial home. The husband had illicit relationship with a divorced lady, he failed to financially maintain the respondent forcing her to depend on her parents. He was Head Constable in Punjab Police earning ₹ ₹

40,000/- per month. Besides, he had rental income of 30,000/- per month from three mobile towers installed in his house. He was also engaged in ₹

business of property dealing earning 50,000/- per month. Thus, his total ₹

income was 1,20,000/- per month. He owned a Maruti Swift Car, Bullet motorcycle and lived a luxurious life.

3. Petitioner contested the petition denying all allegations levelled therein stating that the wife had illicit relations with one Boota Singh s/o Hari Singh and left behind her minor daughters. She only wanted to extort money from him. The marriage was dowryless and no dowry was given or taken. The respondent was capable of maintaining herself as she was employed and was working in a school. All allegations levelled by the respondent were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.

4. Both parties led evidence after considering which, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana allowed the application and awarded maintenance allowance to the wife.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife left the matrimonial home on her own, on account of her extra-marital relation. She ₹

was working and drawing salary of 15,000/- per month. A decree of divorce had also been passed on account of cruelty by the respondent.

Learned Family Court, Ludhiana, ignoring all evidence, erroneously and illegally directed the husband to pay maintenance allowance, despite the fact that the wife was also earning and was well capable of maintaining herself. The plea that respondent was living in adultery was also duly proved by leading cogent evidence on record. It has been prayed that the order 16.09.2025 be set aside.

6. Undisputedly, respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner. It is also beyond the pale of controversy that petitioner is serving as Head Constable in Punjab Police. Statement of PW2 ASI Jatinder Pal recorded before learned Family Court shows that in the month of July, 2023 and August, 2023, his gross salary was Rs.77,887/-. Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, on a threadbare analysis of the evidence led by the parties, on due consideration of the argument