IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.4.2026 Mohammed Asher @ Asad ......Petitioner Versus Sahina .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate for Mr. Nafeesh Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ritu Manohar, Advocate for the respondent.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.9.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nuh, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent-wife. Furthermore, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- 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 was solemnized on 17.11.2019, as per Muslim religious rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the said wedlock. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Family Court vide order dated 21.9.2024 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife along with I attest to the accuracy Rands. 3,000/- 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, Nuh, has allowed the maintenance to the respondent on a very higher side. The petitioner is unemployed and has no source of income. Moreover, he has to discharge the liability towards his family also. It is further submitted that after the marriage of the parties, the behaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner and his family members was not cordial. The respondent left the company of the petitioner without any just cause and started residing at her parental home. The petitioner convened panchayats a number of times but to no avail. Thereafter, on 02.9.2021, the petitioner filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights but the respondent refused to reside with the petitioner. Subsequently, a panchayat was convened on 15.9.2021 wherein a divorce was taken place between the parties as per Muslim rites, subsequent to which, the above petition seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights was withdrawn by the petitioner on 07.1.2022. However, the learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order has not considered the abovesaid factual aspects. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondent is not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the present petition.

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 I attest to the accuracy uanndder 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 Be