Dismissed

Harbhajan Singh Khalsa v. Ajit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Nov 2024CRR(F)/1252/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an interim maintenance order granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to an 87-year-old father. The court held that the objection regarding maintainability under the Senior Citizens Act was barred as it was not raised in the Family Court proceedings. Additionally, the court ruled that the bar under Section 12 of the Senior Citizens Act does not app

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Harbhajan Singh Khalsa Vs Ajit Singh — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

227 CRR-F-1252-2023(O&M) Date of order: 20.11.2024

¶4

Harbhajan Singh Khalsa

…..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Ajit Singh

…..Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present:Mr. Harsh Mehla, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

None for the respondent .

¶12

¶13

Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶14

Challenge in the presen t petition filed by the son is t o the order d a ted 02.06.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Famil y Court, Ludhiana, whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., th e petitioner h a s been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- pe r month by way of maintenance allowance t o the respondent/father, fro m the date of application i.e. 02.09.2021 al o ng with litigation expenses o f Rs.10,000/-.

¶15

Learned counsel for the p etitioner at the outset raises a

¶16

legal objection to the maintainability of the petition under Section 12 5 Cr.P.C. filed b y the respondent. It is conten d ed that as per Section 12 of th e Maintenanc e and Welfare of Parents a n d Senior Citizens Act, 200 7 (hereinafter referred to as “the Senior Citiz e ns Act”) the respondent could have claime d maintenance from the petitioner either under Section 12 5

¶17

SUNENA 2024.12.05 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Page 2 of 8

¶19

Cr.P.C. or u n der the provisions of the Sen i or Citizens Act. It is submitted that the res p ondent was already receiving maintenance in the applicatio n filed by him under the Senior Citizens Act. A s such he could not have file d the present p roceeding under Section 125 C r .P.C.

¶20

On a Court query, it is however admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said ground was not taken by him befor e the learned F amily Court regarding the mai n tainability of the petition unde r Section 125 Cr.P.C. Even a perusal of the written statement filed by th e petitioner ( A nnexure P2) before the learne d Family Court does not evinc e any such ple a made by the petitioner befor e the learned Family Court.

¶21

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

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner an d

¶23

perused the case file in great detail.

¶24

The petitioner is the son of the respondent. Th e respondent i s presently 87 years old. Needless to say, at the grand old ag e of 87, the r espondent would be and is, unable to earn. As such, th e respondent h ad filed a petition under Secti o n 125 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P1) o n 02.09.2021 b efore the learned Family Cour t seeking maintenance from th e petitioner. A t that time, the respondent w a s about 84 years of age. It wa s pleaded in the said petition that being an old and aged person, th e respondent w as unable to earn anything as h e is suffering from various age - related dise a ses. It is further pleaded in the said petition that the petitione r humiliates a n d insults the respondent; and that the petitioner is a man o f

¶25

SUNENA 2024.12.05 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

Page 3 of 8

¶27

means ear n ing about Rs.20,000/- per month as he is working i n hosiery/clot h es factory namely Tana Factor y , Ludhiana.

¶28

Upon notice, the petitioner had appeared and file d written stat e ment (Annexure P2), before th e learned Family Court pleadin g therein that maintenance is not payable to the respondent as he is havin g one FDR of Rs.1,50,000/- lakh with Punja b National Bank. However, th e petitioner w as unable to produce any d o cumentary proof of the sam e before the l e arned Family Court. It had also been pleaded by the petitione r that he and h is wife are suffering from star v ation and they are making thei r living by doi n g sewa in Gurdwara Sahib.

¶29

Pending evidence, the learned Family Court had passe d

¶30

the impugn e d order thereby granting interim maintenance of ₹4000/– pe r month to th e respondent.

¶31

It has been contended by the petitioner before thi s Court that t he respondent is not entitled to maintenance as he had previously also made an application under t he provisions of Senior Citizen s Act before t h e SDM, Ludhiana in which the petitioner had been directed t o pay Rs.1,00 0 /- per month to the responde n t vide order dated 27.09.201 9 (Annexure P 6). Admittedly, the ground of maintainability of the petitio n under Secti o n 125 Cr.P.C. has not been raised by the petitioner before th e learned Family Court. As such, the same ca n not be raised before this Cour t in the first i n stance. As already pointed out above, a perusal of the writte n statement ( A nnexure P2) filed by the petitioner to the petition unde r SUNENA Section 125 Cr.P.C., shows that no such o b jection has been taken by th e 2024.12.05 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

Page 4 of 8

¶33

petitioner b e fore the learned Family Court. Therefore, the same cannot b e raised at thi s stage.

¶34

Furthermore, the said o b jection/ground is not availabl e to the petitioner also in view of the fact t hat by his own admission, th e petitioner is not even regularly paying th e maintenance granted to th e respondent u nder the Senior Citizens Act. A s noted above, vide order date d 27.9.2019 ( A nnexure P6), the learned SDM Ludhiana had directed th e petitioner t o pay maintenance of ₹1000/– per month to the responden t under the S e nior Citizens Act. Vide order d ated 16.12.2023, a coordinat e Bench of thi s Court had directed the petitio n er to “ verify with regard to th e details of a mount paid by the petitioner to the respondent and th e outstanding amount and furnish the affi d avit of the petitioner in thi s regard.” In c o mpliance of the said order, th e petitioner has finally furnishe d affidavit dat e d 2.7.2024, as per which it is a dmitted that pursuant to orde r dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure P6), the peti t ioner has paid a sum of onl y ₹8000/- to t h e respondent towards mainte n ance granted under the Senio r

¶35

Citizens Act in the following manner: –

¶36

Sr. No.	Amount Paid	Date
1.	Rs.1000/-	12.10.2019
2.	Rs.1000/-	17.11.2019
3.	Rs.1000/-	22.12.2019
4.	Rs.1000/-	29.01.2020
5.	Rs.1000/-	28.02.2020
6.	Rs.1000/-	10.02.2021
7.	Rs.1000/-	10.03.2021
8.	Rs.1000/-	10.06.2021

¶37

SUNENA 2024.12.05 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

Page 5 of 8

¶39

Therefore, in a period o f almost 5 years, the petitione r has paid onl y ₹8000/– to the respondent. In these circumstances, this Cour t is bound to o bserve that any bar under sect i on 12 of the Senior Citizens Ac t will not apply in the present case as the petitioner has not paid maintenanc e to the respondent as directed v ide order dated 27.9.2019.

¶40

Section 12 of the Senior C itizens Act reads as follows: -

¶41

“ 12. Option regarding maintenance in certain cases.

¶42

Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter IX of the Cod e of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), where a senior citize n or a parent is entitled for main t enance under the said Chapte r and also entitled for maintena n ce under this Act may, withou t prejudice to the provisions of C h apter IX of the said Code, clai m such maintenance under eith e r of those Acts but not unde r both.”

¶43

It is the considered view of this Court that mere filing o f a claim und e r the Senior Citizen Act would b y itself not be sufficient ground to constitut e a bar from filing of an applicati o n under Section 125 Cr.P.C., o r vice versa. S uch a strict, stringent and st r aitjacket interpretation of th e above provi s ion would not just be inequ i table and unconscionable bu t would also be contrary to the legislative intent decipherable from th e provision viz to ensure that the senior citize n or parent is paid maintenanc e under one o r the other provision. The inh e rent assumption, therefore, i s that mainte n ance is actually paid under ei t her of the provisions. It is onl y then that th e bar envisaged under Section 12 of the Act would come int o operation. Any other interpretation of this p rovision would render the ver y

¶44

SUNENA 2024.12.05 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

Page 6 of 8

¶46

noble purpose, intent and social justice measure of the principal Act, a s encapsulate d in Section 2 of the Act, nu g atory. Section 2 of the Senio r Citizen Act, reads as follows: –

¶47

“ An Act to give effect to the provisions for the welfare o f parents and senior citizens a s guaranteed and recognise d under the Constitution by pro v iding for the maintenance an d welfare of parents and senior citizens, ensuring their overal l physical and mental well-bein g , establishment, managemen t and regulation of institutions f or senior citizens and service s therefor and for other ma t ters connected therewith o r incidental thereto; …”

¶48

Thus, Section 12 of the Act cannot be construed in a manner whi c h would be contrary to or pr o hibitive of the very purpose o f the parent A ct. As such, for this reason as w ell, the objection raised by th e ld. counsel f o r the petitioner, is rejected.

¶49

It is also relevant to not e that the respondent had file d the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. only on 2.9.2021 i.e. almost 2 year s after passin g of order dtd. 27.09.2019. Th u s, it would not be incorrect t o state that t h e respondent was constrain e d to file the present petitio n under section 125 CRPC on 2.9.2021, as the petitioner had abjectly failed t o comply with the order dated 27.09.2019 (A n nexure P6) passed by the SD M Ludhiana an d pay the maintenance as grant e d to the respondent.

¶50

Furthermore, it is well e s tablished in law that revisiona l jurisdiction o f the High Court is limited, as h as been held and reiterated i n several cases including the judgment of M adhya Pradesh High Court in

¶51

SUNENA 2024.12.05 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

Page 7 of 8

¶53

“Smt. Rekha Soni Vs. Gopal & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 2351753,

¶54

wherein it h a s been held as under:-

¶55

“13. Now, the scope of revision a l jurisdiction is also required t o be ruminated. On this aspect, in Kaptan Singh and others V. State of M.P. and another, AIR 1997 SC 2485, (1997) CCR 109 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Cou r t considered a large number o f its earlier judgments, particul a rly Chinnaswami v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 ; Mahendra Pratap v. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968, SC 707; P.N. G. Raju v. B.P. Appadu, AIR 1975, SC 1854 and Ayodhya v. Ram Sumer Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1415 and held that revisional p o wer can be exercised only whe n "there exists a manifest illegalit y in the order or there is a grav e miscarriage of justice".

¶56

14. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452, the Hon'ble Apex Court held a s under: "In Its revisional jurisdic t ion, the High Court can call fo r and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose o f satisfying itself as to the corr e ctness, legality or propriety o f any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdictio n is one of Supervisory Jurisdicti o n exercised by the High Cour t f or correcting miscarriage of j ustice. But the said revisiona l power cannot be equated with t he power of an Appellate Cour t nor can it be treated even second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would n ot be appropriate for the Hig h Court to re-appreciate the e v idence and come to its ow n conclusion on the same when the evidence has already bee n appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge i n appeal, unless any glaring fea t ure is brought to the notice o f the High Court which would o therwise tantamount to gros s miscarriage of justice.”

¶57

(Emphasis added )

¶58

SUNENA 2024.12.05 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

Page 8 of 8

¶60

Even otherwise, it is als o to be taken into consideratio n that the respondent is the octogenarian f a ther of the petitioner. At th e time of filin g of petition under Section 125 C r.P.C., he was 84 years of age . It is reprehe n sible that he is being made to run from pillar to post in orde r to sustain himself at this advanced age, w h ereas it is the moral and legal obligation o f the petitioner to provide for hi s aged and ailing father.

¶61

As such, I find no ground is made out that calls fo r interference in the impugned order. The p resent petition is accordingly ,

¶62

dismissed.

¶63

Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.

¶64

20.11.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶65

SUNENA 2024.12.05 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harbhajan Singh Khalsa v. Ajit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbhajan Singh Khalsa v. Ajit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Vs Anju and Another

Meenakshi Vs State of Punjab and Another

Varun Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Others

Pritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Bittu Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Manpreet Kaur Vs State of Haryana