IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (246-1) CRR(F) No. 519 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 PARVEEN YADAV ......Petitioner Versus SMT SAROJ AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate with Mr. C.S. Saini, Advocate for the respondents.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Narnaul, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 26.08.2020 to 11.04.2024, and Rs.6000/- per month to the minor child from the date of filing of the petition was awarded. Furthermore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was also awarded to the respondent as litigation expenses.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 23.05.2013, as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. One child was born from the said wedlock on 19.04.2015. 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 23.01.2025 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 26.08.2020 to 11.04.2024, and Rs.6000/- per month to the minor child from the date of filing of the petition, along with Rs. 10,000/- 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, Narnaul, has allowed the maintenance to the respondents on a very higher side. It is submitted that the petitioner was though employed as a TGT Science Teacher during 2018-2019, earning a modest salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, however, the fact that he had remained unemployed ever since, one of the reasons for which was the frivolous criminal litigations filed by his wife, was overlooked by the learned Family Court. On the other hand, the respondent-wife, who had otherwise claimed to be unemployed, had categorically admitted during her cross-examination that she was earning Rs.25,500/- per month, and had worked both as a salaried employee and as a Junior Advocate. However, all these factors were not duly considered at the time of passing of the impugned order. Thus, in view of these submissions, respondent No.1 is not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Family Court, after taking into account all the evidence, had passed the impugned order. In fact, it is a submission that the maintenance fixed was rather on the lower side.

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 a