IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.02.2026 JASWINDER SINGH PETITIONER VERSUS SARABJIT KAUR AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Ms. Aakanksha, Advocate and Mr. Lal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner has assailed judgment dated 13.08.2025 of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, enhancing the maintenance from ₹5,000/- per month to ₹8,000/- per month from the date of the petition and litigation expenses from ₹2,000/- to ₹7,500/-

2. An application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was filed by respondent No.1 alleging that the parties were married in the year 1994 at Bathinda according to Sikh rites and ceremonies and two children were born out of the wedlock. Despite sufficient amount spent in the marriage and dowry articles, gold and silver ornaments given, petitioner was not satisfied. Demands for dowry were made from respondent No.1 who was ill- treated, tortured, kept without food, beaten up and thrown out of the matrimonial home many times and finally on 27.10.2013. Respondent No.2 did not own any movable or immovable properties, nor had any source of income and was living at the mercy of her parents, whereas the petitioner was able-bodied, owned movable and immovable properties including Indica Car which he was running as Taxi earning `25,000/-. He also owned 20 acres fertile land in Village Dhaban, District Hanumangarh and Bathinda and his monthly income was ₹70,000/- to ₹80,000/- per month.

3. The petitioner filed reply, contesting the application raising various preliminary objections. He claimed that respondent No.1 was a graduate with NTT and was running a Creche/Pre-Nursery Training Centre. Earlier, she was working as teacher in a school. She was skilled in sewing, knitting, embroidery and was earning ₹15,000/- to ₹18,000/- per month. Thus, she was not entitled to any relief. Due to disputed family life, he was only passing his time. He was already maintaining the respondent No.1, their children and his old parents, who were residing separately in village house. The allegations of demand of dowry, beatings, cruelty and harassment were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the application.

4. The application against the in-laws (respondents No.2 and 3 in the application) was withdrawn on 10.02.2015 on statement of the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 examined herself as AW1, her son as AW2 and thereafter, closed her evidence. The petitioner examined himself as RW1 and brought on record various documents Ex.R1 to R26.

5. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda heard respective submissions, considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and observing that it was the moral duty of the petitioner to maintain respondent No.1, who was burdened with the expenditure of children, awarded ₹5,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1 from the date of application besides litigation expenses of ₹2,000/-.

6. Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal against the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda which was decided by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Batindha on 13.08.2025 and the maintenance was enhanced from ₹5,000/- to ₹8,000/- per month. Litigation expenses too were enhanced to ₹7,500/-.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Appellate Court ignored vital evidence and the impugned order reflected non- application of mind. Learned Appellate Court did not consider the fact that respondent No.1 was running a Creche/Pre-nursery Centre in her house and was earning sufficient amount. False allegations were levelled against the petitioner and the order in appeal deserved to be set aside/modified.

8. Relationship of the parties is admitted. The Act provides relief to an aggri