IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-1516-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.11.2025 GURPREET SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS NISHA SAINI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for petitioner.

***

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

CRM-43595-20025 Heard. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been filed for condonation of delay of 168 days in filing the revision petition. The delay of 168 days in filing the revision petition is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.

CRR(F)-1516-2025 (O&M)

1. A petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondents, wife and children of petitioner, claiming maintenance allowance @ Rs.50,000/- per month. Vide order dated 10.02.2025, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jind, awarded interim maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.1500/- per month to each of the minor children besides one time litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. It is this order which is impugned in the revision petition.

2. For clarity and better appreciation, the parties shall be referred to as husband, wife and minor children.

3. Brief facts of the case, relevant for disposal of the petition, are that the wife and two minor children alleged in the petition that the parties were married on 03.12.2014 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children Navraj Singh aged 7 years and Tarman Kaur aged 5 years were born out of the wedlock. The husband had illicit relations with other ladies and there were criminal cases pending against him. The wife was subjected to taunts, mental and physical cruelty and was not permitted to talk to her parents or sister. The husband did work of repair and sale of R.O., gas geyser, gas stove, LED etc. and earned Rs.80,000/- per month. On 09.08.2023, the wife was beaten up and expelled from the matrimonial home with the minor children. Since then, she was residing with her parents. She had no movable or immovable property nor any sufficient means to maintain herself whereas respondent was earning Rs.80,000/- per month.

4. Respondent contested the petition, denying the allegations levelled in the petition and claimed that wife left the matrimonial home with all her belongings, on her own and had illicit relations with another boy. She ill-treated the husband and his aged parents. Being able bodied, she could earn her own livelihood.

5. The only argument of learned counsel for the husband is that the quantum of interim maintenance assessed by learned Family Court was on much higher side. Learned Family Court failed to consider the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure submitted by the husband, wherein he had disclosed his income to be Rs.10,000/- per month. It was urged that from this meager income, it was impossible for the husband to make payment of interim maintenance allowance of Rs.7,000/-. The wife was able bodied and could earn her own livelihood. He thus, prayed that the order awarding interim maintenance to the wife and minor children be set aside.

6. On a specific query put by the Court, learned counsel stated that petitioner was an electrician and worked on a shop.

7. The order of interim maintenance allowance has been challenged only regarding the quantum. Assessment of interim maintenance for the wife is required to be made on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the affidavits of assets, income and expenditure. In such matters, since the parties often do not come forward with complete and correct details regarding their income, assets and liabilities, some amount of guess work by the Court is inevitable. The husband undisputedly, is an electrician and a skilled worker. His claim that the wife is also able bodied and is capable of maintaining herself and her minor child is not recognized by law. The marriage and relationship of parties being admitted, the husband cannot be permitted to wriggle out of his moral, legal and statu