IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-1523-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision:- 04.11.2025 Babita and another ...Petitioners Versus Manoj Kumar Malik ...Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.(Oral)

1. Petitioners Babita and Samaksh Malik have filed criminal revision against impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad vide which evidence of petitioners was closed by order and application moved on behalf of petitioners to recall the said order is also dismissed vide order dated

19.08.2025.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners pointed out that petitioners i.e. Babita and her minor son aged about five years filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-1) claiming maintenance from Manoj Kumar Malik. Said application was contested by respondent-husband. He filed his reply with a prayer to dismiss the petition. Both parties filed their respective affidavits and interim maintenance was awarded to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month to each of the petitioners alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/- vide order dated 16.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Thereafter, case was fixed for petitioners’ evidence. Learned counsel for petitioners placed on record all zimni orders passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Due to unavoidable circumstances, statement of petitioner-wife could not be recorded and her evidence was closed by order by passing impugned order dated 28.05.2024. Application was filed to recall the said order and same is declined vide impugned order dated 19.08.2025. It is pointed out that in case statement of petitioner-wife is not recorded, case of petitioners will be adversely affected. Therefore, petitioners may be granted only one opportunity to record the statement of Babita as her own witness.

2. On advance notice, Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent and filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. It is pointed out that petitioner No. 1-Babita has failed to explain any cogent reason why statement was not recorded before the trial Court. Ample opportunity was given. Cost was also imposed. Even then she did not step into the witness box to give her own statement. At present, respondent- husband has already concluded the evidence. Respondent is unnecessarily suffering on account of delay on the part of petitioner-wife by not leading her own evidence. It is pointed out that petitioners do not deserve lenient view.

3. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. From the zimni orders, it is evident that petitioner-wife was given number of opportunities to lead her evidence. She was appearing in person alongwith her counsel, even then counsel for petitioner-wife did not examine her as a witness. Cost was also imposed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad and last opportunity was granted to conclude evidence. When petitioner-wife failed to lead any evidence despite given opportunities, her evidence was closed by order vide order dated 28.05.2024. Thereafter, respondent-husband also availed about four opportunities and finally stepped into the witness box. Perusal of zimni orders indicate that during this entire period, respondent-husband only paid litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- on 13.04.2023. Even respondent-husband did not pay the interim maintenance up to date. It is not disputed that petitioner-wife Babita is not a working lady. On account of matrimonial dispute, she is residing separate alongwith her five years old child. Provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are enacted to provide maintenance to the wife and children who are unable to maintain themselves. Very objective of provision is to prevent vagran