IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.04.2026 KAMLAJIT VIRK PETITIONER VERSUS AMANDEEP KAUR AND ANOTHER RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate as Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.

1. Order dated 18.01.2025 of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalandhar in MNT-125-141-2024 titled “Amandeep Kaur and Another Vs. Kamaljit Virk” awarding maintenance of ₹6,200/- per month to respondent No.1 and ₹4,200/- per month to respondent No.2 has been assailed in the present revision petition.

2. For clarity and better appreciation, the parties shall be referred as husband, wife and child.

3. Learned counsel for the husband submits that the parties were married on 25.02.2013 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies and out of the wedlock a female child was born on 19.11.2013. At the time of the marriage, the husband was working in Dubai. Thereafter, the wife left the matrimonial home of her own on 29.12.2013 in the absence of the husband and never showed any inclination to return. Till 2014, the husband had been regularly sending money for the wife and the minor daughter, who lodged a false FIR against him in 2015, forcing him to quit his job and return to India. Petitioner was only 10^th pass, ITI diploma holder (Diesel Engineer Mechanic) and was earning paltry amount. The maintenance assessed i.e. ₹6,200/- per month for the wife and ₹4,200/- for the child was much beyond the financial capacity and resources of the husband who was looking after his old ailing mother and dependent brother. The wife was well qualified and capable of meeting her own expenses which learned Family Court, Jalandhar failed to consider. The order dated 18.01.2025, therefore, deserved to be set aside.

4. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj V. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC : (AIR

2008 SC 530), it has been ruled that:

“Section 125, CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal V. Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC 70: (AIR 1978 SC 1807), falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It 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. It gives effect to fundamental rights and nature duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves”.

5. The aforesaid position was highlighted even in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya V. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636 : (AIR 2005 SC 1809). This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain his wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

6. In Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan 2015 5 SCC 705 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. is the amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as the mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. It was further observed that, as per law, she is entitled to lead life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband and as long as she is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity. Lastly, it was noted that, a plea is sometimes advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay as he does not have a job or his business is not doing well, but these are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law as a husband, who is healthy, able-bodied and in a position to support himself