IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (124) CRR(F) No. 228 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 Sahil Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Sheetal and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Narnaul, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month and Rs. 4,000/- per month was awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively. Furthermore, a sum of Rs. 5,500/- was also awarded to the respondents as litigation expenses.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 22.2.2016, as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies and a male child was born from the said wedlock on 07.5.2017. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondents. The learned Family Court vide order dated 11.11.2024 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8,500/- per month in favour of the Gurpreet Singh respondents (Rs. 4,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent No. 2) along with Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses. 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 Principal Judge, Family Court, Narnaul, has allowed the maintenance to the respondent on a very higher side. The petitioner is currently unemployed and has no source of income, and the claim made by respondent No. 1 that the petitioner has been earning Rs. 50,000/- per month from Salon and Rs. 70,000/- per month from other sources, are baseless and have not been supported by any cogent evidence. It has also been submitted that respondent No. 1 has been employed as a Teacher in a private school and is also doing sewing/stitching work. Therefore, she has been earning handsome income and is capable in maintaining herself and respondent No. 2. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court in the impugned order, has wrongly assessed the income of the petitioner to be Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner tried his best to maintain respondent No. 1 but she left the company of the petitioner along with the minor (respondent No. 2) without any sufficient cause. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondents are not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.

4. The present petition is decided in limine in order to save litigation cost of the respondents and also to save the judicial time of the Court. 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.

5. The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to

2025.12.10 20:46 ensure that the dependent spouse and children are not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage or any other unfortunate circumstance. 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.

6. 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