Paras @ Trilok v. Poonam

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶1The present petition has been preferred against order dated

06.10.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Camp Court, Mahendergarh under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., vide which, interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application was awarded to the respondent, wife of the petitioner.

¶2The marriage between petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 24.02.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock, no child was born. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Family Court vide order dated 06.10.2023 granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application in CRR(F)-1566-2023 2

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 learned Family Court has fallen into grave error by awarding more amount as interim maintenance than the amount claimed by the respondent. Learned counsel submits that the respondent has sought maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month, however, learned Family Court has awarded interim maintenance to the extent of Rs.50,000/- per month. As such, the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount of maintenance to the respondent.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is a trite law that learned Family Court is well empowered to grant more amount of maintenance than claimed, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the status of the husband. In this regard, he relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Amarjit Singh Vs. Pushpa Devi bearing CRM-M No.6455 of 2011. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has concealed his ownership of immovable property and the respondent is in possession of revenue record to substantiate her claim. As such, the learned Court below has rightly granted the interim maintenance in favour of respondent.

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

¶6The object and purpose behind granting interim 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 CRR(F)-1566-2023 3

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.

¶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 CRR(F)-1566-2023 4

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."

¶8Another objective the legislature has sought to achieve by this provision is to provide interim 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.

¶9There 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 interim maintenance which is just and fair in terms of principle of equistatus. The quantum of interim maintenance must be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid occurrence of the two extremes of the interim maintenance being either paltry or extravagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The adequacy of the interim maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort.

¶10While dealing with the issue of maintenance in extenso, a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another

(2021) 2 SCC 324, laid down the criteria for determining quantum of maintenance and issued the following directions: CRR(F)-1566-2023 5

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:

(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 CRR(F)-1566-2023 6

¶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 circumstances of a case.

(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 CRR(F)-1566-2023 7

civil court as per the provisions of the CPC more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI."

¶11A 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 at the time of deciding the application for interim maintenance. The learned Family Court has observed that the petitioner is earning handsomely being a successful businessman. It is trite law that an able-bodied husband is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife. Moreover, the annual turnover of the proprietorship firm of the petitioner ranges from Rs.1.5 crores to 5 crores and at this stage, the amount of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court below is only interim in nature subject to an adjustment at the time of final disposal and the parties are yet to prove their respective pleadings before the learned Family Court by adducing evidence in their support. 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 Family Court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) November 19, 2024 JUDGE manisha

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-1566-2023 Date of decision: 19.11.2024 PARAS @ TRILOK ...PETITIONER V/S POONAM ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate and Mr. Nitin Verma, Advocate for the respondent.