Harpreet Singh v. Harpreet Kaur

224-1       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-1359-2023 (O & M) Date of decision: 05.04.2024

HARPREET SINGH ...PETITIONER V/S HARPREET KAUR ...RESPONDENT CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Archana, Advocate for Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate for respondent. 0000 HARPREET SINGH BRAR  J. (ORAL)

¶1The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.08.2023, passed by the learned Family Court, Hoshiarpur under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. vide which the interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month was awarded to the respondent, wife of the petitioner.

¶2The   marriage   between   the   petitioner   and   respondent   was solemnised on 06.12.2014 in accordance with Sikh rites and rituals. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Family Court vide order dated 09.08.2023 granted interim maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

¶3Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and filed his vakalatnama, which  is  taken  on  record. CRR(F)-1359-2023 (O & M) 2 2024:PHHC:046724 Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place.

¶4I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

¶5The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage. At the same time, a just and careful balance must be struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon to punish the   other   spouse.   The   Courts   are   required   to   conduct   the   maintenance proceedings while being alive to the legislative intent behind the provision under 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.

¶6A 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." A two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479, speaking through Justice Faizan Uddin, opined as follows: "15. ... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind CRR(F)-1359-2023 (O   !) 3 2024:PHHC:046724 that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation." /. Another o jective the legislature has sought to achieve  ' this provision is to provide !aintenance  pendente lite  to the applicant spouse during proceedings e!erging out of !atri!onial disputes so that the she-he can !aintain herself-hi!self, have sufficient funds to pursue the litigation, and not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse. <. There is a general tendenc' on the part of the wife to a!plif' her needs and the hus and to conceal his actual inco!e, !a1ing it difficult to deter!ine the earning capacit' of the rival clai!ants with e=actitude. The rival clai!ants !ust scrupulousl'  ring on record their actual respective earning capacities in order for the )ourt to arrive at 3uantu! of !aintenance which is just and fair in ter!s of principle of e3uistatus. The 3uantu! of !aintenance !ust  e justifia le and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid occurrence of the two e=tre!es of the !aintenance  eing either paltr' or e=travagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penur'. The ade3uac' of the !aintenance allowance has to  e deter!ined  ' the 'ardstic1 of the dependent spouse  eing a le to lead a life of reasona le co!fort. $. >hile dealing with the issue of !aintenance in extenso, a two 6udge  ench of the *on8 le Supre!e )ourt in R"4+$*5 6, N$5" "+' "+%#5$7MANISHA CRR(F)-1359-2023 (O   !) 4 2024:PHHC:046724

(2021) 2 -CC 324, laid down the criteria for deter!ining 3uantu! of !aintenance and issued the following directions: "%%% Criteria for determinin& '!ant!m of maintenan(e

(i) The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

¶82The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non.working wife. Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and others

(1997) 7 SCC 7. Refer to Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112.

¶83In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant.wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the CRR(F)-1359-2023 (O   !) 5 2024:PHHC:046724 spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

¶84On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications. Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303.

(ii) A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316.

¶85The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.

(iii) Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub. section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the CRR(F)-1359-2023 (O   !) 6 2024:PHHC:046724 same, (iv) value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning or from any other source.

(iv) Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

(v) The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v. Smt. Saroj Hegde 40

(2007) DLT 16 laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance : "1. Status of the parties.

¶2Reasonable wants of the claimant.

¶3The independent income and property of the claimant.

¶4The number of persons, the non.applicant has to maintain.

¶5The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

¶6Non.applicant's liabilities, if any.

¶7Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.

¶8Payment capacity of the non.applicant.

¶9Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non.applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.

¶10The non.applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

¶11The amount awarded under section 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/24 of the Act. 17."

(vi) Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable." xxx xxx xxx V% )inal Dire(tionsMANISHA CRR(F)-1359-2023 (O   !) 7 2024:PHHC:046724

¶130In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B .1 to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:

(a) %ss!e of overla**in& "!risdi(tion

¶131To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:

(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or setoff, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding:

(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;

(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding (+) ,ayment of %nterim -aintenan(e

¶132The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country. (() Criteria for determinin& t.e '!ant!m of maintenan(e

¶133For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria CRR(F)-1359-2023 (O   !) 8 2024:PHHC:046724

¶134The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.

(d) Date from w.i(. maintenan(e is to +e awarded

¶135We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B.IV above.

(e) /nfor(ementti/1e(!tion of orders of maintenan(e

¶136For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C may be applicable. The arder of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI." #. A perusal of the i!pugned order passed  ' the learned (a!il' )ourt !a1es it evident that the )ourt  elow has dul' considered the !aterial placed  efore it for deter!ining the 3uantu! of !aintenance. A careful and just  alance has  een drawn, 1eeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and high cost of living corresponding to the reasona le needs of the respondent. ?earned counsel for the petitioner has not  een a le to indicate an' perversit' in the i!pugned order which warrants interference  ' this )ourt. Accordingl', the present petition is dis!issed  eing  ereft of an' !erit.

(HARPREET -INGH BRAR) A97): 05; 2024             JUDGE manisha 4i5 >hether spea1ing-reasoned @es-Ao 4ii5 >hether reporta le @es-Ao