IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.11.2025 SUNIL KUMAR ......Petitioner Versus NEERAJ YADAV ALIAS NEERU .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S.Chauhan, Advocate and Ms. Manita Dalla, Advocate for the respondent.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 16.03.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari, in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 02.12.2019 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies and no issue was born from the said wedlock. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Family Court concerned vide order dated 16.03.2023 granted

2025.11.07 09:55 interim maintenance to the tune 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 contends that the learned Family Court concerned has allowed the interim maintenance to the respondent on a very higher side, without taking into consideration the actual carry home salary of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner though was drawing a gross salary of Rs.51,776/- per month, however, an amount of Rs.22,682/- was deducted towards his house loan and other liabilities, thereby leaving a much lesser take-home salary. Further, the respondent has admitted in her affdavit employed and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, as she is working as an X-ray Technician under the Haryana Government at PGIMS, Rohtak, on a contractual basis. However, the said fact was not taken into consideration by the learned Family Court concerned. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondent is not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent opposes the present petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and after perusing the record, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions so advanced.

6. Upon request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the present matter was sent to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Rewari, for working out a possible amicable settlement and thereafter the case has been received back being as unsettled.

7. The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse and children are not reduced to destitution

2025.11.07 09:55 or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage or any other unfortunate circumstance. Provisions of interim maintenance pending adjudication of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a way of granting immediate relief to the aggrieved. 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 su