IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.02.2026 SANDEEP PETITIONER VERSUS POONAM AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Satender Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.

1. The petition assails order dated 17.04.2025 of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp at Hansi, District Hisar in case bearing No.MNT/125/76/2023 titled “Poonam and Others Vs. Sandeep”, awarding interim maintenance allowance of ₹4,500/- per month to respondent No.1- wife and ₹1,500/- per month each to respondents No.2 and 3-minor children besides ₹5,100/- as litigation expenses.

2. For clarity and better appreciation, parties shall be referred as husband, wife and minor children.

3. Facts of the case are that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 18.05.2023 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children, now aged 09 years and 07 years, were born out of the wedlock. The wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging ill-treatment, cruelty, demands of dowry at the hands of the husband and his family members, on account of which, she was finally expelled from the matrimonial home and was compelled to live with her parents. She claimed that the husband was working as Home Guard in Haryana Police and was drawing salary of ₹30,000/- per month. He also owned 4 acres agricultural land and his total income was ₹50,000/- per month. Having neglected to support her and the children, she claimed maintenance allowance of ₹25,000/- per month besides litigation expenses of ₹22,000/-.

4. The husband opposed the petition denying the allegations of cruelty, ill-treatment, dowry demands etc. He also denied that he earned ₹50,000/- per month and claimed that the wife was herself earning ₹30,000/- from tailoring and embroidery work. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for. 5. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp at Hansi, District Hisar heard both sides, considered respective affidavits detailing their assets, income and expenditure and assessed income of the husband at ₹23,640/- per month. Considering the fact that his mother was dependent on him, he was directed to pay a sum of ₹4,500/- per month to the wife and ₹1,500/- per month each to the minor children as interim maintenance allowance along with ₹5,100/- as litigation expenses.

6. The only challenge to the order assessing interim maintenance allowance is on the ground of quantum. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, during the course of arguments, placed on record statement of account of HDFC Bank and also the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure filed by the husband before learned Family Court to contend that monthly average income of the husband was only ₹15,000/- per month and he was burdened with the liability of maintaining his mother who was permanently disabled to the extent of 60 percent. Therefore, the maintenance deserved to be reduced. 7. The scope of controversy in the petition is a narrow one. Income of the husband has been assessed by learned Family Court on the basis of his admission in his affidavit that he is working as a Constable, on daily wage basis i.e. ₹788/- per day. Assessment of income of the husband at ₹23,640/- per month on the basis of his admission in the affidavit cannot be said to be excessive, in view of settled principle of law that it is the earning capacity of the husband which the Court is required to consider.

8. In Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan5 (2021) 2 SCC 324 (2015) 5 SCC 705, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. is the amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as the mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. It was further observed that, as per law, she is entitled to lead life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband and as long as s