IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-77-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 01.04.2026 NEETU ...PETITIONER VERSUS KASHMIR SINGH ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Sachin Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

CRM-1939-2026 Heard. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been filed for condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the revision petition. The delay of 49 days in filing the revision petition is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.

CRR(F)-77-2026 (O&M)

1. The revision petition impugnes judgment dated 30.08.2025 of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnal vide which petitioner’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was legally wedded wife of respondent. Her marriage was solemnized in the year 1995 at Panipat as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Three children were born out of the wedlock. The eldest daughter was married and other two were now major. Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was erroneously dismissed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnal without considering that petitioner No.1 was dependent on her meager earning of Rs.15,000/-. It was urged that even if the wife was earning, she could not be denied maintenance allowance. Respondent had deserted petitioner, neglected and refused to maintain her, thus, order dated

30.08.2025 deserved to be set aside.

3. The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by petitioner and her two major children claiming that petitioner No.1 was married to respondent in 1995 at Panipat. Three children were born out of the wedlock. For some years, the married life was normal but 4-5 years before filing the petition, behaviour of the respondent changed. He gave severe beatings to petitioner No.1, raised illegal demands, insulted and abused her. She further claimed that she was a household lady and had no independent source of income.

4. Learned Family Court denied maintenance to the petitioner on the ground that she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and was living in the house owned and constructed by respondent whereas respondent Kashmir Singh was living elsewhere. She was also earning rent of Rs.3,000/- from ground floor of the house and thus was not unable to maintain herself. Further, petitioner No.2 was married and petitioner No.3 was working abroad. Learned Family Court also noticed admission of petitioner No.1 that respondent contributed in the upbringing of the children and their studies and had also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of petitioner No.3, who had to go abroad.

5. Petitioner failed to disclose in her pleadings that she was an earning hand working as Sweeper in MC, Karnal. The fact that petitioner No.1 was working as Sweeper in MC Karnal and her salary was Rs.18050/- has been proved by examining RW2 Ravi, Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Karnal. Law is fairly well settled that a litigant, who approaches the Court of law seeking redressal of any grievance and claims relief, is obliged to disclose complete and true facts. The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is absolute. A litigant who attempts to mislead the Court by furnishing false facts or by concealing material facts is not entitled to any relief.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Auroville Foundation Vs.

Natasha Storey 2025 INSC 348 held as under:

“10. As held in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 2421 as a general rule, suppression of material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. Similar view has been taken in General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Jai Bhagwan & Anr., (2008) 4 SCC 127 in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank