IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (114-2) CRM-M No. 55906 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 09.1.2026 Rajender Taneja ......Petitioner Versus Vijaya .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Rajnder Taneja-petitioner in person (through V.C.).

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kurukshetra, in a petition filed by the respondent and her daughter under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month was awarded in their favour i.e. Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the daughter.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 04.12.2011, as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies and a female child was born from the said wedlock on 22.10.2012. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent along with her daughter filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Family Court vide order dated 25.10.2021 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the respondent and her daughter (Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the minor daughter) 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, Kurukshetra, has allowed the maintenance to the respondent and the daughter on a very higher side. It is submitted that there is no evidence regarding the refusal to maintain the respondent and her daughter by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the respondent is highly qualified and has six months experience as a Computer Operator in K.S.Convent School, Kurukshetra. Therefore, she is capable of maintaining herself and her daughter. The petitioner further submits that the learned Family Court in the impugned order, has wrongly believed the income of the petitioner to be Rs. 50,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner tried his best to maintain the respondent and her daughter but she left the company of the petitioner along with the minor without any sufficient cause. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondent is not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of CRR(F)-154-2022. However, vide order dated 29.8.2025 the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

5. The present petition is being decided in limine in order to save litigation cost of the respondent and also to save the judicial time of the Court. Having heard the petitioner, and after perusing the record, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions so advanced.

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

2026.01.15 13:32 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.

7. A three-Judge Bench of th