IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.03.2026 ANKUR MADAAN PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Ms. Vibha, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)

1. The petition challenges common judgment dated 11.12.2025 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, deciding two appeals CRA- 381-2023 titled “Salony Vs. Ankur Madaan” and CRA-16-2024 titled “Ankur Madaan Vs. Salony alias Salony Madaan” against the judgment dated 03.10.2023 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar.

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

3. In the wife’s application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2005) against the husband, claiming protection orders, monetary relief and residence orders besides maintenance and rent, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar directed to husband to pay ₹8,500/- per month to the minor child from the date of filing of the application and denied maintenance to the wife on the ground that the wife was earning handsome salary of ₹56,000/- per month, which was sufficient for her sustenance during litigation. The amount of ₹8,500/- was awarded considering the claim of the wife that minimum monthly expenditure of the child was approximately ₹16,967/-. The husband and wife both filed separate appeals challenging the order before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, modified the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar and awarded ₹7,000/- per month to the wife as interim maintenance besides ₹3,000/- per month for rent of an alternative accommodation totaling ₹18,500/-.

4. Aggrieved with the direction to pay interim maintenance of ₹7,000/- to the wife and ₹3,000/- as rent, the husband has filed a revision petition challenging the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.

5. The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the wife was herself a permanent government employee since 2013 and was drawing salary of approximately ₹100,000/- per month which was sufficient for her sustenance. She was neither dependent nor indigent, therefore was not entitled to any maintenance. Supporting the order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, it was canvassed that the order declining maintenance to the wife was justified whereas the order of learned Appellate Court reversing the findings without cogent reasons, was unsustainable. It was argued that that the intention of the enactment was to prevent destitution and not to create financial parity between the spouses who were gainfully employed. Further, the wife was receiving house rent allowance from her employer and was residing in parental home. Therefore, she was not entitled to any amount towards rent. The husband, on the other hand, was burdened with the liability of maintaining his minor daughter and treatment of ailing mother, who was undergoing chemotherapy. The prayer is to set aside the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar qua grant of maintenance and rent to the wife.

6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, while determining the appeals separately filed by the husband and the wife has observed that as per pay slip of the wife, her gross salary was approximately ₹84,000/- per month and she was receiving net salary of ₹73,000/- per month. The husband, as per his pay slip, was drawing gross salary of ₹1,71,000/- per month and his net salary was ₹1,10,000/- per month. Besides, the salary income, the husband has 3 FDRs amounting to ₹3,40,000/- (jointly owned by the wife), PPF deposit amounting to ₹1,40,000/-, other government and non-government deposits amounting to ₹11,31,000/- and LIC policy of ₹5,00,000/-. He also owns Maruti Ciaz Car. Maintenance canno