Mandeep Kaur v. Mohinder Singh @ Baljinder Singh

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1.    The  present  petition  has  been  preferred  for  enhancement  of maintenance  granted  vide  impugned  order  dated  04.10.2022  passed  by  the learned  Principal  Judge,  Family  Court,  Barnala,  under  Section  125  of  the Cr.P.C.  vide  which  maintenance  to  the  tune  of  Rs.5,000/-  per  month  was awarded to the petitioner i.e. wife of the respondent.

2.    The  marriage  between  the  petitioner  and  the  respondent  was solemnized on 02.03.2013 in accordance with Sikh rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of wedlock. Soon after the wedding ceremony, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The respondent filed a reply and contested the claim made by the petitioner. The learned Family Court vide CRR(F)-1379-2022        2

order  dated  04.10.2022  granted  maintenance  allowance  of  Rs.  5,000/-  per month to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month despite the fact that 1/4 the  respondent  owns  agricultural  land  measuring  3 acres  and  is  gainfully employed in Dubai. He argues that the respondent drives a truck in Dubai and is earning handsomely. Moreover, it is settled law that the respondent is under a legal obligation to maintain the petitioner as the primary object of granting maintenance  is  to  secure  relief  to  the  deserted  and  destitute  wife.  The maintenance granted in the present case is not only inadequate but completely disproportionate to the income of the respondent as the learned trial Court has clearly  observed  that  the  respondent  is  earning  Rs.  2,00,000/-  per  annum. Lastly, he avers that the petitioner admittedly has no source of income and is dependent on her parents to sustain herself.

4.    Per  contra,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  submits  that  the learned  trial  Court  has  passed  a  well-reasoned  judgment  based  on  correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, no interference is warranted by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent does not work as a driver but in fact works as a labourer. There is nothing on file to show that he possesses a licence or owns a vehicle overseas.

5.    I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.    The 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 MANISHA struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon to punish CRR(F)-1379-2022        3

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.

7.    A 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."

8.    There 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 CRR(F)-1379-2022        4

determine the earning capacit+ o& the riva! c!aimants .ith eBactitude. )he riva! c!aimants  must scrupu!ous!+ *ring on record their actua! respective earning capacities in order &or the -ourt to arrive at 8uantum o& maintenance .hich is "ust and &air in terms o& princip!e o& e8uistatus. )he 8uantum o& maintenance must *e "usti&ia*!e and rea!istic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and a!so to avoid occurrence o& the t.o eBtremes o& the maintenance *eing either pa!tr+ or eBtravagant$ ensuring that neither o& the t.o is reduced to a !i&e o& penur+. )he ade8uac+ o& the maintenance a!!o.ance has to *e determined *+ the +ardstic3 o& the dependent spouse *eing a*!e to !ead a !i&e o& reasona*!e com&ort. =.    Chi!e dea!ing  .ith the  issue  o&  maintenance  in eBtenso$  a t.o Judge *ench o& the 7on?*!e Supreme -ourt in %&a"nes' v. (e'a and anot'er ) (2*21)  2  SCC  32$$  !aid  do.n  the  criteria  &or  determining  8uantum  o& maintenance and issued the &o!!o.ing directions: "III Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance

(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. CRR(F)-1379-2022        5

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 MANISHA CRR(F)-1379-2022        6

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 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: CRR(F)-1379-2022        7

(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 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 13&.  'or enforcement(e)ecution of orders of maintenance" it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance ma  be enforced under Section 2*+ of the ,indu -arriage +ct" 1.5&/ Section 201&2 of the 3.4. +ct/ and Section 12* of Cr.P.C ma  be applicable. The arder of maintenance ma  be enforced as a mone  decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC more particularl  Sections 51" 55" 5*" &0 r.#. 5rder 66!.7

10.    9n  the  present  case$  the  stand  o&  the  petitionerti.i&e  is  that  the respondenttihus*and is .or3ing as a driver in 6u*ai and is earning a sum o& #s.1 !a3h per month *ut no document either the driving !icence or the passport or an+ emp!o+ment !etter has *een *rought on record to su*stantiate the same. 4o dou*t$ the respondent o.ns a 2.5 8ilas o& !and$ out o& .hich$ he is earning approBimate!+  #s.2  !a3hs  per  month  and  considering  a!!  these  &actors$ CRR(F)-1379-2022        8

maintenance to the tune o& #s.5$000/0 per month has *een a.arded in &avour o& the petitioner. A 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. 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 petitioner. 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.

11.     %ccording!+$ the present petition is dismissed *eing *ere&t o& an+ merit.

(HARPREET !INGH BRAR) R#$#%&#' () :1* 0+ 202*              JUDGE P%()(,)-#' () : 1+ 0+ 202* manisha

Chether spea3ing/reasoned  : Des/4o Chether reporta*!e   :  Des/4o

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-1379-2022 Judgment reserved on: 14.05.2024 Pronounced on: 15.05.2024 Mandeep Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singh @ Baljinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sumit, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate for the respondent. ****