Dismissed

Sarab Sukhjit Singh v. Mona Bindra Alias Charanjit Kaur and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2024CRR(F)/1165/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging a Family Court order directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 14,000 to his wife and minor son. The Court rejected the petitioner's claim of low income, noting he admitted earning Rs. 22,000 previously and could not prove the wife's higher income or her desertion without cause. Citing Supreme Court precedents, it held the husband ha

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; maintenance order upheld.

Sarab Sukhjit Singh Vs Mona Bindra Alias… — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

108 CRR-F-1165-2024(O&M)

¶4

Date of order: 11.09.2024

¶5

Sarab Sukhjit Singh

¶6

…..Petitioner(s)

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mona Bindra @ Charanjit Kaur & Another

¶9

…..Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

***** Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶13

Challenge in the presen t petition is to the order date d 30.03.2024 p assed by the learned Addition a l Principal Judge, Family Court - II, Jalandha r , whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., th e petitioner h a s been directed to pay final m aintenance of Rs.14,000/- pe r month to th e respondents (Rs.8,000/- per m onth to respondent No.1/wif e and Rs.6,00 0 /- per month to respondent N o .2/minor son) from the date o f filing the petition. Said maintenance sh a ll be payable to responden t No.2/minor s on from the date of filing the p e tition till he attains majority.

¶14

Learned counsel for the p etitioner assails the impugned order with t h e sole contention that the peti t ioner is earning only Rs.9,000/ - per month. A s such, the impugned mainten a nce is on the higher side and i s beyond the p aying capacity of the petitione r . It is submitted that moreover , respondent No.1 had deserted the matrimonial home without an y reasonable c ause and of her own free will and choice. As such, she is no t

¶15

SUNENA 2024.09.13 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶16

Page 2 of 6

¶17

entitled to m aintenance u/s 125(4) CRPC. It is further contended tha t respondent N o.1 is skilled in stitching work a nd embroidery etc. from whic h she is earning more than Rs.30,000/- per m o nth. It has been stated in Par a

¶18

6 of the pre s ent petition that respondent N o.1 is more qualified than th e present peti t ioner and earns more than Rs. 1 lakh per month as she is skille d in stitching w ork and also imparting tuitio n s to the students; whereas th e petitioner is only a matriculate and workin g as a driver in Nipun Paints and Chemicals a n d is earning only Rs.9,000/- p er month. It has further been stated that the petitioner neither has any l a nded nor commercial propert y and thus do e s not have any rental income.

¶19

3. No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the petitioner.

¶20

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner an d

¶21

perused the case file in great detail.

¶22

5. Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitione r was married to respondent No.1 on 24.08. 2 014. One son/respondent No. 2 herein was b orn out of their wedlock on 1 1 .07.2015. It is the allegation o f the respond e nt No.1 that she was given se v ere beatings and turned out o f the matrim o nial home along with the min o r child on 20.06.2016, and th e parties are l i ving separately since then. Pe t ition under Section 125 Cr.P.C . was filed by t he respondents on 14.06.2017 .

¶23

6. It is the contention of t h e petitioner that he is workin g as a driver w ith Nipun Paints and Chemicals and earning only Rs.9,000/- pe r month. On the face of it itself the said submission of the petitioner belie s

¶24

SUNENA 2024.09.13 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

belief. Even as per the minimum wages as a dmissible as per the Minimum Wages Act, the petitioner would be earning minimum of Rs.15,000/- t o Rs.20,000/- p er month.

¶27

7. Moreover, the petitioner has not produced any salar y certificate f r om the said Nipun Paints an d Chemicals in support of hi s assertion th a t he was earning only Rs.9,000 / - per month. Even no official o f the said co n cern was examined by the petitioner. In fact, in his cross - examination , the petitioner has himself a d mitted that he was previousl y working at a salary of Rs.22,000/- per mo n th. As such, contention of th e petitioner that he is earning only ₹9000/– p e r month is outright rejected.

¶28

8. Further, it is relevant to mention that the respondent s had produc e d photographs (Ex.P5 and P6) w hich depicted injuries inflicte d upon the pe r son of respondent No.1. These photographs were admitted b y the petition e r in his cross-examination. Ho w ever, he was unable to give an y explanation in respect of the said injuries. Thus, respondent No.1 ha d sufficient ca u se to leave the matrimonial home. Even no efforts were foun d to have bee n made by the petitioner to reh a bilitate the respondents.

¶29

9. Furthermore, the petitio n er was unable to produce an y evidence to buttress his assertion that res p ondent No.1 was earning Rs. 1 lakh or Rs.3 0 ,000/- per month from her work of stitching. Besides the bald statement t h ere was no evidence on record by the petitioner in this regard.

¶30

10. On the other hand, it w a s the case of the respondent s before the l d . Family Court that the petitio n er is running business of ladies '

¶31

SUNENA 2024.09.13 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

readymade g arments under the name an d style of M/s Safri Collection s near Gurud w ara Bazar Sheikhan, Jalandha r and his monthly income fro m the said business was said to be about Rs.2 lakh. It was also pleaded by th e respondents that besides this, the petition e r was also running a PG Hous e of 40 rooms under the name and style of M / s Best PG which is situated in a good comm e rcial area of the city, from whi c h the petitioner is earning Rs. 2 lakh. The p e titioner was also stated to be owning two bungalows i n Jalandhar fr o m which he was getting a re n tal income of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.12,000/- p er month. Besides this, the p e titioner was also stated to b e owning several cars and other vehicles and l e ading a luxurious life.

¶34

11. Relevant findings of th e learned Family Court in thi s

¶35

regard are a s follows:-

¶36

“76. His cross-examination rev e als that he admitted on bein g confronted with photographs Ex .P9 to Ex.P12 that he is sittin g in his shop. He admitted phot o graphs Ex.P7 & Ex.P8 to be o f same shop which is in the Baza r . The said photograph show th e name of said shop to be Safri C ollection. He admitted that hi s mobile number is 97791-29393 is written outside the said sho p and other number written on t h e said shop is that of his father. He admitted that the shop in which he is visible is with hi s f ather. As mentioned earlier, t h e respondent is only son of hi s f ather. RW2 Ajinder Pal Singh w ho is respondent’s father als o admitted that the name of his shop is Safri Collection and hi s shop is visible in photographs E x .P7 to Ex.P12 and the said sho p is on the ground floor and the r e sidence is on the upper floor.”

¶37

Thus, it is clear that th e petitioner has not come wit h

¶38

clean hands before this Court.

¶39

SUNENA 2024.09.13 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶40

Page 5 of 6

¶41

13. It is by now a settled tr e nd that in matters such as th e present one , the husband tries to depict his income on the lower side , whereas the wife attempts to show an exag g erated income of the husband. The truth lie s somewhere in between. With o ut accepting, however, for th e sake of arg u ment, even if the assertion o f the petitioner is taken to b e correct, he c annot escape from his moral a nd legal obligation to maintai n his wife and minor child. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan” (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 661024, ha s categorically held as follows: –

¶42

“ B. Criminal Procedure C ode, 1973 Section 125 Grant o f maintenance to wife - Plea of h usband that he was not doin g j ob and had no means to pay c annot be accepted - These ar e only bald excuses - Held :-

¶43

(i) If the husband i s healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support hi m self, he is under the lega l obligation to support his w ife.

¶44

(ii) It is the obliga t ion of the husband to maintai n his wife - He cannot be permitted to plead that he i s unable to maintain the w ife due to financial constraint s as long as he is capable o f earning.”

¶45

14. Admittedly, the petitio n er does not suffer from an y physical infirmity and is healthy and able bo d ied.

¶46

15. It is oft-repeated and no longer res integra that Sectio n 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justic e to protect abandoned wife , children an d parents from vagrancy an d destitution. In “ Kirtikant D.

¶47

SUNENA 2024.09.13 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶48

Page 6 of 6

¶49

Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat & Another” (1996) 4 SCC 479, the Hon’bl e

¶50

Supreme Co u rt has opined as follows:

¶51

“15. ...While dealing wi t h the ambit and scope of th e provision contained in S e ction 125 of the Code, it has t o be borne in mind that the dominant and primary objec t is to give social justice t o the woman, child and infir m parents, etc. and to prev e nt destitution and vagrancy b y compelling those who ca n support those who are unabl e to support themselves but have a moral claim fo r support. The provisions i n Section 125 provide a speed y remedy to those women , children and destitute parent s who are in distress. Th e provisions in Section 125 ar e intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominan t purpose behind the ben e volent provisions contained i n Section 125 clearly is t h at the wife, child and parent s should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvatio n …”