Jitender v. Renu

HARPREET SINGH BRAR,  J. (ORAL)

¶1This order of mine shall dispose of aforementioned two petitions impugning the same order dated 30.10.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Narnaul, vide which interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month has been awarded to respondent-wife.

¶2For the sake of brevity, facts are taken from CRR(F)-1766-2023.

¶3Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized on 21.04.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, no child was born from the said CRR(F)-1766-2023 (O & M) 2 wedlock. Matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance. The petitioner-husband   filed   a   reply   and   contested   the   claim   made   by   the respondent. The learned Family Court, Narnaul vide order dated 30.10.2023 granted interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 25,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife. Aggrieved by the same, both the parties have preferred these revision petitions.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband inter alia contends that initially learned Family Court has awarded an interim maintenance @ Rs. 18,000/- in favour of respondent-wife. Thereafter, when the petitioner-husband filed his affidavit declaring his assets and liabilities, the interim maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- per month. The petitioner has taken a personal loan and he is also paying EMIs towards repayment of the said loan. Further the petitioner has his old parents to look after and he also has monthly expenditure on grossery and other items and now he has been posted at Tripura and his household expenses have also increased.

¶5Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife in CRR(F)- 1766-2023  contends that maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month awarded by learned Family Court below is on the lower side as learned Family Court below has not taken  into  consideration that  petitioner-husband is working as Sr. Bank Manager and earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. Therefore, prayer was made for enhancing the amount of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month.

¶6I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file with their able assistance. CRR(F)-1766-2023 (O & M) 3

¶7The 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.

¶8A 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 CRR(F)-1766-2023 (O & M) + 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."

¶9Another 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.

¶10There 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 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.

¶11While 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: "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: CRR(F)-1766-2023 (O & M) 3

(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

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

¶12Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel CRR(F)-1766-2023 (O & M) 6 for the petitioner(s) in both the petitions. It has come on record that the gross salary of the petitioner-husband is Rs. 71,758/- and only statutory deductions are to be excluded, in order to assess the income of the petitioner. Any amount being paid by the petitioner-husband towards EMIs cannot be taken into consideration while awarding interim maintenance and moreover, the amount of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court below is only interim in nature subject to adjustment at the time of final disposal and parties are yet to prove their respective pleadings before the learned Family Court by adducing evidence in their support. The respondent-wife has alleged that petitioner is owner of commercial land in Delhi and also own 48 kanals of agriculture land jointly with his father. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) have not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the both the revision petitions are hereby dismissed being bereft of any merit.

¶13Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

¶141othing o.served hereina.ove shall .e constr*ed as e<pression of opinion of this Co*rt on +erits of the case and the trial Co*rt shall proceed witho*t .eing pre=*diced ./ o.servations of this Co*rt.

(HARPREET .INGH BRAR) .!4 !56!7 172 202+             JUDGE Ajay Goswami

(i) >hether spea(ing3reasoned ,es31o

(ii) >hether reporta.le ,es31o

CRR(F)-1766-2023 (O & M) 1 223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRR(F)-1766-2023 (O & M) Date of decision: 17.09.2024 JITENDER ...PETITIONER V/S RENU ...RESPONDENT 2. CRR(F)-143-2024 (O & M) Date of decision: 17.09.2024 RENU ...PETITIONER V/S JITENDER ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR(F)-1766-2023 and for the respondent in CRR(F)-143-2024. Ms. Deepika, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav for the petitioner in CRR(F)-143-2024 and for the respondent in CRR(F)-1766-2023.