IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.1.2026 Bikramjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus Kanwaljeet Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 28.8.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tarn Taran, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- 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 05.11.2016, as per Sikh religious rites and ceremonies. No child 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 filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondents. The learned Family Court vide order dated 28.8.2025 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- 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 Principal Judge, Family Court, Tarn Taran, has allowed the maintenance to the respondent on a very higher side and without considering the income of the petitioner and his existing financial obligations towards his disabled brother, who is suffering from Cerebral Palsy, and second wife. It is also submitted that the respondent-wife is highly qualified and capable of earning a handsome income, therefore, is not entitled for any maintenance. It is further submitted that from October 2018 onward, the respondent wife had severed all kinds of relations with the petitioner. The petitioner tried his best to maintain the respondent-wife but she left the company of the petitioner without any sufficient cause. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage by way of decree of divorce, which was allowed ex parte by the learned Family Court concerned on 02.4.2021 in favour of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that earlier the petition filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the learned Family Court concerned on 29.2.2024. The said decision was challenged by the petitioner by filing CRR(F)-639-2024 before this Court. Vide order dated 16.5.2025, passed by this Court, the order dated 29.2.2024 was set aside and the case was remanded back to the learned Court concerned for passing an order afresh. Subsequently, the learned Family Court concerned passed the impugned order in a slipshod and hasty manner, and that too without considering the evidence produced by the petitioner. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondent is 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 respondent 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 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 Constitut