Parveen Nehra v. Pooja and Another

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

¶1The  present revision  petition  has  been  preferred against  the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Bhiwani Camp at Loharu under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. vide which the interim maintenance   of   Rs.22,500/-   per   month  was   awarded  to  the  respondents (Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.7,500/- per month to respondent No.2), wife and minor son of the petitioner.

¶2The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnised on 08.12.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Out of this wedlock, one male child was born. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondents. The learned Family Court vide order dated

11.03.2024 granted interim maintenance allowance of Rs.22,500/- per month in favour   of   the   respondents.  Aggrieved   by   the   same,   the   petitioner   has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner  inter alia  contends that the interim maintenance awarded to the respondents is not in consonance with the actual income of the petitioner and the learned Family Court has fallen into grave error while assessing the interim maintenance as it has failed consider the fact that respondent No.1 owns immovable property.  He further submits that the petitioner has already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and as such, the respondents are not entitled to any maintenance.

¶4I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case with his 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 Neha 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."

¶7Another objective the legislature has sought to achieve by this provision is to provide maintenance pendente lite to the applicant spouse during proceedings emerging out of matrimonial disputes so that the she/he can maintain herself/himself, have sufficient funds to pursue the litigation, and not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse.

¶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 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 "enur-. )he ade9uac- o( the +aintenance a..otiance has to *e deter+ined *- the -ardstic7 o( the de"endent s"ouse *ein& a*.e to .ead a .i(e o( reasona*.e co+(ort.

¶4@hi.e dea.in& 0ith the issue o( +aintenance in extenso, a ttio ;ud&e *ench o( the 5on<*.e 2u"re+e Court in R()$"#* +. N"*( ($, ($-%*"!

(2021) 2  CC '24' .aid dotin the criteria (or deter+inin& 9uantu+ o( +aintenance and issued the (o..otiin& 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 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 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. CRR(F)-510-2024 -.-

¶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(tions

¶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 CRR(F)-510-2024 -/- (+) ,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 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 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."

¶108n vieti o( the a*ove' this Court (inds no (orce in the ar&u+ents advanced *- .earned counse. (or the "etitioner.   $t this sta&e' on.- interi+ +aintenance is &ranted to the "arties and the "arties are -et to "rove their res"ective c.ai+s *- adducin& evidence.

¶115avin& heard .earned counse. (or the "etitioner' it trans"ires that 0hi.e atiardin& interi+ +aintenance' the inco+e o( the "etitioner' *ased on his socia. status' 0as assessed at Rs. :0'0003- "er +onth *- the .earned Fa+i.- Court' in vieti o( the (act that he had not (i.ed his inco+e and assets a((idavit in co+".iance o( the directions issued *- 5on<*.e 2u"re+e Court in A2a"nes. Vs. Neha 3e.a and anot.er< 2020 (4) RCR (C!010$(2) 3/4. Further' neither the detai.s of any property owned by respondent No.1 have been provided nor does anything on the record suggest that she has any other source of income. As such, it is evident that the Court below has duly considered the material placed before it for determining the quantum of interim maintenance. 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 respondents. 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 petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit.

¶12Nothing   observed   hereinabove   shall   be   construed   to   be   an expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial.  The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

18.07.2024

245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-510-2024 Reserved on: 17.07.2024 Pronounced on: 18.07.2024 Parveen Nehra ....Petitioner Versus Pooja and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Anu Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.