IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 PARDEEP PETITIONER VERSUS JYOTI AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.

1. Judgment dated 28.10.2025 of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panipat awarding ₹10,000/- to respondent No.1 and ₹5,000/- each to respondents No.2 and 3 as maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

has been assailed in the present petition.

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

3. Brief facts, relevant for disposal of the petition are that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 22.11.2004 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock, two children, namely, Parti alias Vanshika and Anshika were born. The wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging that despite sufficient amount spent in the marriage and dowry articles given, the husband and his family members harassed, humiliated, taunted her for bringing less dowry, misappropriated her jewellery, treated her like a servant, raised dowry demands, gave her beatings and expelled her from the matrimonial home. She was taken back with the intervention of Biradari Panchayat but again, demands for dowry were raised. The husband gave her merciless beatings and turned her out of the matrimonial home on 19.03.2022. Since then, she was residing in rented accommodation. She had no movable or immovable property and was unable to maintain herself and the minor children, who were school going. The husband, on the other hand, was earning ₹45,000/- per month and had a plot measuring 73 square yards in Samalkha. Maintenance allowance to the tune of ₹30,000/- per month was claimed besides ₹22,000/- as litigation expenses. 4. The husband contested the petition and denied allegations of dowry demand, beatings and harassment. He claimed that the wife had been harassing him and his family members and had levelled false allegations. Her behaviour was cruel, rude, uncivilized and non-cooperative. She threatened to implicate him and his family members in false cases and deserted him in July, 2006 without any cause. On 19.03.2020, she again left his company and started living in rented accommodation. Despite requests, she refused to join his company. She had sufficient means to maintain herself and the minor children as she was working in a factory, earning ₹15,000/- per month. The husband, on the other hand, was working in Haryana Roadways. He was diabetic and heart patient. He had to maintain and look after his aged parents and two younger brothers.

5. In evidence, the wife examined herself as PW1 besides Mukesh Kumar, Clerk as PW2 who proved pay slip of the husband, Ex.P1. The husband examined himself as RW1 and Dalip Singh as RW2. Certain documents were brought on record.

6. The only argument of learned counsel for the husband is that the wife was earning ₹15,000/- per month and to prove her employment, the husband brought on record Ex.R1 to R11 wherein she could be seen working in a company DTC Courier Services. Learned Family Court, Panipat erroneously declined to rely upon the documents. The amount of ₹20,000/- per month as assessed by learned Family Court was excessive, considering the earnings of the wife and the liabilities of the husband, who was maintaining his parents and brothers. He further submits that during pendency of the petition, the divorce case between the parties had been finalized.

7. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial for the reasons provided in the provision, so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and her children, if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean basic sustenance. The wife is entitled in law to lead lif