Parveen v. Neha and Another

IN TH

Parveen

Neha and anot

CORAM: HO Present: Mr

for

HARPREET S CRM No.23362

Th Limitation Act revision petition the remedy of f order.

Fo justice, delay o The application CRR (F) No.74

1.

Th impugned orde Gurugram und HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR

CRR(F) Date of D

v/s ther

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARP r. Amandeep Rana, Advocate r the petitioner. **** SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL) 2 of 2024 he instant application has been seeking condonation of delay o n on the ground that the applic filing a revision petition before t or the reasons stated in the app of 282 days in filing the presen n stands allowed. 46 of 2024 he present revision petition ha er dated 11.05.2023 passed b der Section 127 of the Cr.P.C

AB AND HARYANA RH No.746 of 2024 (O&M) Decision:21.08.2024

…Petitioner

…Respondents PREET SINGH BRAR n filed under Section 5 of the of 282 days in filing the present cant-petitioner was not aware of this Court against the impugned plication and in the interest of nt revision petition is condoned. as been preferred against the by the learned Family Court, . vide which the maintenance e t f d f . e , e

awarded to resp to Rs.8000/- &

2.

Th solemnised on However, matri filed a petition filed a reply an Family Court, G Cr.P.C. had dir to respondent N However, vide a petition prefe qua respondent per month resp this Court by fil

3.

Le enhanced amou side. It is not petitioner has b Cr.P.C. and the and his defence

4.

I h paper book with

5.

Th that the depend pondent No.1-wife and responde Rs.5000/- per month respectivel he marriage between the petitio

21.06.2010 in accordance wit imonial dispute ensued between under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seek nd contested the claim made b Gurugram vide order dated 20.0 rected the petitioner to pay main No.1-wife and Rs.3000/- per m order dated 11.05.2023, the lear erred under Section 127 Cr.P.C. t No.1-wife and respondent No.2 ectively. Aggrieved by the same ling the present petition. earned counsel for the petitione unt of maintenance payable to th in consonance with the actual been proceeded ex parte in the p erefore, he was not granted any e was struck off. have heard learned counsel for h his able assistance. he object and purpose behind gr dent spouse is not reduced to des

ent No.2-son has been enhanced ly. oner and respondent No.1 was th Hindu rites and ceremonies. n the couple and the respondents king maintenance. The petitioner y the respondents. The learned

1.2015 under Section 125 of the ntenance of Rs.5000/- per month month to respondent No.2-son. rned Family Court, Gurugram in . has enhanced the said amount 2-son to Rs.8000/- & Rs.5000/- e, the petitioner has approached er inter alia contends that the the respondents is on the higher income of the petitioner. The petition filed under Section 127 y opportunity to defend his case the petitioner and perused the ranting maintenance is to ensure stitution or vagrancy on account d s . s r d e h . n t - d e r e e e e t

of failure of m struck to ensure the other spou proceedings wh under Section assistance and provisions of S justice and pro within the cons Constitution of

6.

A (K.) v. Veerasw Beevi, opined th "3. ach des clo

A t Vadodaria v. S Faizan Uddin, o "15 con tha the des tho cla rem dis thi pro an des marriage. At the same time, a ju e that this provision does not deg use. The Courts are required hile being alive to the legislati 125 Cr.P.C in its true spirit social justice to women, chi Section 125 Cr.P.C. were enacte otect dependent women, childre stitutional sweep of Article 15(3) India. three-Judge Bench of the Hon wamy (K.) (1991) 2 SCC 375, s hat as follows: . Section 125 of the Code of C hieve a social purpose. The obj stitution. It provides a speedy othing, and shelter to the deserte two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC opined as follows:

¶5... While dealing with the am ntained in Section 125 of the C at the dominant and primary ob e woman, child and infirm p stitution and vagrancy by comp ose who are unable to support aim for support. The provisions medy to those women, children a stress. The provisions in Sectio is special purpose. The dominan ovisions contained in Section 12 d parents should not be left i stitution and starvation."

ust and careful balance must be generate into a weapon to punish d to conduct the maintenance ive intent behind the provision , which is to provide speedy ldren and infirm parents. The d as a measure to further social en and parents, which also fall ) reinforced by Article 39 of the n'ble Supreme Court in Vimala speaking through Justice Fatima Criminal Procedure is meant to ject is to prevent vagrancy and remedy for the supply of food, ed wife." e Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. C 479, speaking through Justice mbit and scope of the provision Code, it has to be borne in mind bject is to give social justice to parents, etc. and to prevent mpelling those who can support t themselves but have a moral in Section 125 provide a speedy and destitute parents who are in on 125 are intended to achieve t purpose behind the benevolent 25 clearly is that the wife, child in a helpless state of distress, e h e n y e l l e a a o d

e n d o t t l y n e t d

7.

An provision is to during proceedi maintain hersel suffer at the ins

8.

Th needs and the determine the e claimants must capacities in or just and fair in must be justifia also to avoid o paltry or extrav penury. The ad the yardstick o comfort.

9.

Wh Judge bench of

(2021) 2 SCC maintenance an VI to dir Co

nother objective the legislature o provide maintenance pendent ings emerging out of matrimonia lf/himself, have sufficient funds stance of the affluent spouse. here is a general tendency on the husband to conceal his actual earning capacity of the rival claim t scrupulously bring on record rder for the Court to arrive at qu terms of principle of equistatus able and realistic to provide succ ccurrence of the two extremes o vagant, ensuring that neither of dequacy of the maintenance allo f the dependent spouse being a hile dealing with the issue of f the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C 324, laid down the criteria nd issued the following directions I Final Directions

¶0In view of the foregoing discu V of this judgment, we deem it ap rections in exercise of our pow onstitution of India:

has sought to achieve by this te lite to the applicant spouse al disputes so that the she/he can to pursue the litigation, and not e part of the wife to amplify her income, making it difficult to mants with exactitude. The rival their actual respective earning uantum of maintenance which is s. The quantum of maintenance our to the dependent spouse and of the maintenance being either f the two is reduced to a life of owance has to be determined by able to lead a life of reasonable maintenance in extenso, a two Rajnesh v. Neha and another a for determining quantum of s: ussion as contained in Part B -1 appropriate to pass the following wers under Article 142 of the s e n t r o l g s e d r f y e o r f

g e

(a)

con bec is Co We

(i) un or wh the

(ii) pro pro (iii mo sam

(b)

as sha inc Co thr

(c) app enu

con fac cir

(d)

aw as

(e)

dir ) Issue of overlapping jurisdictio

¶1To overcome the issue of ove nflicting orders being passed i come necessary to issue directio uniformity in the practice ourts/District Courts/Magistrate e direct that: where successive claims for ma der different statutes, the Court setoff, of the amount awarded hile determining whether any fur e subsequent proceeding: ) it is made mandatory for the ap oceeding and the orders pass oceeding;

i) if the order passed in the prev odification or variation, it would me proceeding ) Payment of Interim Maintenan

¶2The Affidavit of Disclosure of Enclosures I, II and III of this j all be filed by both parties in cluding pending proceedings ourt / District Court / Magistra roughout the country. ) Criteria for determining the qu

¶3For determining the quantum plicant, the Court shall tak umerated in Part B III of the jud

¶4The aforesaid factors are ho ncerned Court may exercise its ctor/s which may be necessary o rcumstances of a case. ) Date from which maintenance

¶5We make it clear that mai warded from the date of filing th held in Part B-IV above. ) Enforcement/Execution of ord

¶6For enforcement/execution o rected that an order or decree of

on erlapping jurisdiction, and avoid in different proceedings, it has ons in this regard, so that there e followed by the Family Courts throughout the country. aintenance are made by a party t would consider an adjustment d in the previous proceeding/s, rther amount is to be awarded in pplicant to disclose the previous sed therein, in the subsequent vious proceeding/s requires any d be required to be done in the nce f Assets and Liabilities annexed judgment, as may be applicable, n all maintenance proceedings, before the concerned Family ates Court, as the case may be, uantum of maintenance m of maintenance payable to an ke into account the criteria dgment. owever not exhaustive, and the discretion to consider any other or of relevance in the facts and e is to be awarded intenance in all cases will be he application for maintenance, ders of maintenance of orders of maintenance, it is of maintenance may be enforced d s e y

y t

n s t y e d

y

n a e r d e

s d

un app dec pa

10.

In advanced by lea thereafter, he maintenance is struck off. A D 2014 (24) R.C.R observed as foll "8. dis ad am dis he app eff exe Civ lea exe to exe ext Th an pay str

11.

A Rajnesh Vs. N judgment rende categorically ho respondent if th der Section 28A of the Hindu

(6) of the D.V. Act; and Se plicable. The arder of maintenan cree of a civil court as per th rticularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 view of the above, this Court f arned counsel for the petitioner. abandoned the proceedings. one of the grounds on which d Division Bench of this Court in R (Civil) 380, speaking through lows:- ...Where the spouse who is scharge the liability, the other dopt time consuming execution mount. Court cannot be a mut sobedience of the interim ord lplessness in its instant imple propriate even in the absence o fect in the Act, to strike off the ercise of its inherent power und vil Procedure read with Sectio ave the aggrieved party to s ecution as execution is a long an say, the remedy under Sectio ecution of decree or interim ord tinguished by striking off the de hus, where the spouse who is d d litigation expenses, the leg yment are that the defence of ruck off." (emphasis added) two Judge Bench of the Hon'bl Neha and another, (2021) 2 ered in Kaushalya Vs. Mukesh old that the Court may proceed he errant spouse, in spite of being

u Marriage Act, 1956; Section ection 128 of Cr.P.C may be nce may be enforced as a money he provisions of the CPC more 0 r.w. Order XXI." finds no force in the arguments The petitioner had appeared and Furthermore, non-payment of defence of the petitioner can be n Mohinder Verma Vs. Sapna, Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal, has to pay maintenance fails to r spouse cannot be forced to n proceedings for realising the te spectator watching flagrant ders passed by it showing its ementation. It would, thus, be of any specific provision to that defence of the erring spouse in der Section 151 of the Code of on 21 of the Act rather than to seek its enforcement through nd arduous procedure. Needless on 28A of the Act regarding der does not stand obliterated or efence of the defaulting spouse. directed to pay the maintenance gal consequences for its non-the said spouse is liable to be le Supreme Court in the case of SCC 324 has relied upon its h Jain, (2020) 17 SCC 822 to to strike off the defence of the g given a reasonable opportunity n e y e s d f e , s o o e t s e t n f o h s g r

e - e f s o e y

to participate in regard can also Singh, AIR 199

12.

Th his actual inco maintenance on balance has bee cost of living Learned counse in the impugned the present petit

August 21, 202 Pankaj*

n the trial, appears to be unjustly o be placed on the judgment of t 96 P&H 175. he petitioner is an able bodied p ome. As such, the learned F n the basis of material available en drawn, keeping in view the sp corresponding to the reasona el for the petitioner has not been d order which warrants interfere tion is dismissed being bereft of

(i) Whether speaking/reason

(ii)

y prolonging it. Reliance in this this Court in Rani Vs. Parkash person and he has not disclosed Family Court has assessed the e on record. A careful and just piralling inflation rates and high able needs of the respondents. n able to indicate any perversity ence by this Court. Accordingly, f any merit. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE ed

s h d e t h . y ,