IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.02.2026 Amit Kapoor ......Petitioner Versus Tripta and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Nanvi Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Mamta Saini, Advocate for the respondents.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 17.11.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonipat, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs.4,000/- in favour of respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- each in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 was awarded).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 03.05.2013, as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies and two children were born from the said wedlock. 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 17.11.2023 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the respondents (Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- each per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3). 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, Sonipat, has allowed the maintenance to the respondent on a very higher side. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has wrongly assessed the income of the petitioner as ranging between Rs.30,000/- to 40,000/- per month, despite it being proved on record that his monthly salary is only Rs.21,500/- per month. The learned Family Court has also failed to consider that the petitioner has the liability of his sister, and the fact that he is living on a rented accommodation and is paying Rs.6500/- per month rent for the same. It has also been submitted that respondent No.1 is well qualified; besides she is working as a teacher, and thus is capable of maintaining herself and respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner tried his best to maintain respondent No.1 but she left the company of the petitioner without any just cause. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondents are not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Family Court has duly considered the material placed before it at the time of deciding the application for maintenance and has rightly awarded the maintenance in favour of the respondents, to which they are entitled.

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 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 as follows:

“3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.”

7. A two-Judge Bench of the