Kulwant Singh v. Jaswinder Kaur

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶1The present petition has been preferred against judgment dated

05.11.2019 passed by learned Family Court, Ludhiana under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., vide which, maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month was awarded to the respondent, wife of the petitioner.

¶2The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 17.01.2010 at Jahraon in accordance with Sikh rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock, no child was born. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Family Court vide order dated 05.11.2019 granted maintenance allowance of ₹5,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that respondent has left the company of the petitioner without any justifiable cause. CRR(F)-13-2020 2

Learned counsel further submits that respondent is running her own beauty parlour and boutique and is earning a handsome amount of Rs.20,000/- per month approximately. Furthermore, the petitioner is a daily wager and is earning only Rs.250/- per day wages. As such, the petitioner is not in a position to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has no source of income to maintain herself and she is solely dependent upon her parents, whereas the petitioner is an agriculturist and is also doing the dairy farming as well as taxi business and is earning Rs.30,000/- per month.

¶5Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, this Court finds no ground in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6The 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 falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the CRR(F)-13-2020 3

¶7A 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 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."

¶8There is a general tendency on the part of the wife to amplify her needs and the husband to conceal his actual income, making it difficult to determine the earning capacity of the rival claimants with exactitude. The rival CRR(F)-13-2020 4

claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities in order for the Court to arrive at quantum of maintenance which is just and fair in terms of principle of equistatus. The quantum of maintenance must be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid occurrence of the two extremes of the maintenance being either paltry or extravagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The adequacy of the maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort.

¶9While dealing with the issue of maintenance in extenso, a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another (supra), laid down the criteria for determining quantum of maintenance and issued the following directions: "VI Final Directions

¶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) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction

¶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: CRR(F)-13-2020 5

(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

(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance

¶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.

(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance

¶133For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B III of the judgment.

¶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 CRR(F)-13-2020 6

(d) Date from which maintenance is to be 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) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance

¶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."

¶10A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court makes it evident that the Court below has duly considered the material placed before it for determining the quantum of maintenance. The learned Family Court has rightly observed that respondent is running a beauty parlour and the petitioner is an able-bodied person and has not placed on record any documentary proof, by which, his income/salary could be ascertained. It is trite law that an able-bodied husband is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife. However, if the husband is unemployed or documentary proof qua his income is not available, it can be reasonably assumed that he can work as a labourer and earn the prevalent minimum wage. Reliance in this regard can be placed on judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena 2014(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 723 and this Court in Amanjot Singh vs. Rajwant Kaur 2017(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 1070, Satish @ Bittoo vs. Suresh Devi 2018(1) Law Herald 595, Dalip Kumar @ Deepa vs. CRR(F)-13-2020 7

Sunita and another 2012(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 434 and Sandeep vs. Suman in CR-1802-2023 decided on 22.03.2023.

¶11Thus, a careful and just balance has been drawn, keeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and high cost of living corresponding to the reasonable needs of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) September 24, 2024 JUDGE manisha

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-13-2020 Date of decision: 24.09.2024 KULWANT SINGH ...PETITIONER V/S JASWINDER KAUR ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Manleen Kaur, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Ghai, Advocate for the respondent. 0000