221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-150-2024 (O&M)

Reserved on 03.11.2025 Pronounced on 11.11.2025 HIMBA SHEINA @ HIMBA SHIENA ...PETITIONER VERSUS SUKHI JAGDEEP SINGH ...RESPONDENT CRR(F)-310-2024 (O&M)

Reserved on 03.11.2025 Pronounced on 11.11.2025 HAJER SHEINA @ HAJER SHIENA ...PETITIONER VERSUS SUKHI JAGDEEP SINGH ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent.

***

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

1. Petitioners Himba Sheina @ Himba Shiena, wife and Hajer Sheina @ Hajer Shiena minor daughter of respondent have both challenged order dated 12.12.2023 of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, SAS Nagar, vide which the prayer of the wife for interim maintenance was declined and interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month was assessed for the minor daughter, with effect from the date of filing of the application, till she attained the age of majority. The prayer in both petitions is for setting aside/modification of the impugned order.

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

3. The facts, emanating from the record are that the husband and wife were married on 11.12.1998. Out of the wedlock, two daughters Sameera and Hajer were born. The elder daughter was 19 years old and younger was 17 years, old at the time of filing of the petition. The children were in the custody of the wife. In the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife and minor daughter, it was averred that soon after the marriage, the wife found that the husband was a daily drunkard who had no respect for her or her family members. His behavior was rude and abusive. During the period of 18-19 years of living with him, she suffered humiliation, illtreatment, physical, mental torture, domestic bickerings. Behavior of the husband was hostile. Even after birth of the children, things did not improve. The husband did not care for his two daughters. He had extra-marital affairs and put the wife to extreme humiliation and trauma. Though, he was a man of means, coming from a rich family, he did not provide any maintenance to the wife and the daughters. All dowry articles of the wife were illegally retained by him and his family members. His earnings were Rs.1 crore per month from various sources like rent, properties, bank returns, agricultural produce. He owned numerous properties in and outside India and was a multi-millionaire. The wife required financial assistance to maintain herself and her daughters in a decent, luxurious way. Both daughters were dependent upon the wife. A prayer was made for award of Rs.15,00,000/- per month as interim maintenance allowance for the wife and Rs.5,00,000/- to the minor daughter. 4. The husband contested the petition. Reply was filed raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability etc. It was stated that the petition was misuse of the process of law, filed intentionally and deliberately, with intent to harass him. The wife had concealed true and material facts. She did not disclose her income and earnings in the petition only to take undue benefit of law. She was earning rental income from various properties of his father and was living an adulterous life. The husband claimed that due to recession, he was unemployed and was trying to find a job. He suffered losses in his business in the year 2011 and decided to shift to Muscat, Oman but the wife refused to accompany him on which account, he started visiting India after every 2-3 months, leaving behind his company R.S. Infrastructure in the hands of the wife. He also purchased many properties in the name of the wife in India and abroad. Not a single complaint was filed against the husband during the matrimonial life of 20 years. The wife was rude and demanded more and more money. All allegations levelled in the petition were denied. The husband claimed that h