Dismissed

Rahul Chaudhary v. Anjali and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2024CRR(F)/1256/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a challenge to an interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court held that allegations of adultery were not pleaded below and that it was not desirable to determine evidence or findings on merits at this interlocutory stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition for interference with interim maintenance order was dismissed with no grounds appearing for interference at this stage.

Rahul Chaudhary Vs Anjali and Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

111 CRR-F-1256-2023(O&M)

¶4

Date of order: 09.09.2024

Rahul Chaudhary

…..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Anjali & Others

…..Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:Mr. Deep Singh Saini, Ad v ocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶13

Challenge in the presen t petition is to the order date d 02.06.2023 p assed by the learned Addition a l Principal Judge, Family Court , Panipat, wh e reby in a proceeding under Se c tion 125 Cr.P.C., the petitione r has been directed to pay interim maintena n ce of Rs.13,000/- per month t o the respon d ents (Rs.8,000/- per month t o respondent No.1/wife an d Rs.2,500/- e a ch per month to respondents No.2 and 3/minor daughters) , from the d a te of filing the petition alo n g with litigation expenses o f Rs.5,500/-.

¶14

2. Learned counsel for the p etitioner inter alia submits tha t the petition e r is earning only Rs.26,000/ pe r month, 50% of which has been granted by way of maintenance to the respondents. Learned counsel submits that even as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at best 1/3^r^d of the income of the petitioner could have been granted a s maintenanc e and not 50%.

¶15

SUNENA 2024.09.10 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶16

Page 2 of 6

¶17

3. It is further submitted th a t in any event, the responden t No.1 is not entitled to maintenance as sh e is living in adultery with on e Sanjay Bagh e l. However, this fact has not b een taken into account by th e learned Family Court while passing the imp u gned order. It is also submitte d

¶18

that the petitioner has the additional resp o nsibility of his aged and ailin g mother. It is accordingly prayed that the p r esent petition be allowed, an d the impugned order be set aside.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

perused the case file in great detail.

¶22

6. Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitione r was married to respondent No.1 on 05.12. 2 012. Three children were bor n out of thei r wedlock, two of whom ar e in the care and custody o f respondent N o.1 and one minor daughter i s in the care and custody of th e petitioner. D ue to matrimonial discord, the p arties started living separately . Petition un d er Section 125 Cr.P.C. (An n exure P3) was filed by th e respondents on 02.02.2021.

¶23

7. It may be pointed out that during the course o f arguments b efore this Court, on a Court q uery, it has been admitted b y learned cou n sel for the petitioner that the a llegation that respondent No. 1 is living in a d ultery, has not been mention e d by the petitioner before th e learned Fa m ily Court. Even a perusal of t h e reply dated Nil filed by th e petitioner t o the petition under Section 1 2 5 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P4) show s

¶24

SUNENA 2024.09.10 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

that no such objection has been taken ther e in by the petitioner. Even in th e reply dated Nil, filed by the petitioner to t h e respondents’ application fo r grant of int e rim maintenance, nothing h a s been mentioned about an y alleged adul t ery on part of respondent No.1.

¶27

8. It is the contention of t h e petitioner that he is earnin g only Rs.26,000/- per month. It is the con t rary contention of responden t No.1 before the learned Family Court that the petitioner is working as a Clerk in a G o vernment office for a monthl y income of Rs.50,000/-. Whil e passing the impugned order, the learned Fa m ily Court has taken note of th e fact that the petitioner in his Affidavit of In c ome, Assets and Liabilities ha s mentioned h is gross income, as well as n et income, as Rs.23,500/- pe r month. Acc o rdingly, the learned Family C o urt drew an adverse inferenc e against the p etitioner that the petitioner is concealing his income. Keepin g in view the admitted fact that the petitioner is working as a Clerk in a Government office, his income was taken to be at least Rs.40,000/- t o Rs.50,000/per month. It is in this background that the impugne d maintenanc e has been granted.

¶28

9. It is by now a settl e d trend that in matters o f maintenanc e such as the present one, t h e husband tries to depict hi s income on the lower side, whereas th e wife attempts to show a n exaggerated income of the husband. T he truth lies somewhere i n between. H o wever, these a re all matte r s of evidence. The truth o r otherwise o f the allegations and counter - allegations made by both th e parties can o nly be determined upon lea d ing of evidence. As such, it i s

¶29

SUNENA 2024.09.10 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

neither desi r able nor feasible for this Cou r t to interfere at this stage, le t alone retur n a finding in respect of the as s ertions made by either of th e parties.

¶32

The Hon’ble Supreme C o urt in “ Shamima Farooqui v.

¶33

Shahid Khan” (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 661024, has held as follows: –

¶34

“ 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 :-

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.”

¶37

11. Moreover, the grant o f interim maintenance is a temporary m easure of social justice to h elp the abandoned wife and children to t i de over the difficult period. It i s oft-repeated and no longer re s integra that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a meas u re of social justice to protec t abandoned w ife, children and parents fro m vagrancy and destitution. I n “ Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat & Another” (1996) 4 SCC 479,

¶38

the Hon’ble S upreme Court has opined as follows:

¶39

“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

¶40

SUNENA 2024.09.10 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶41

Page 5 of 6

¶42

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 …”

¶43

Again, a three-Judge B e nch of the Hon’ble Suprem e Court in “ Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)” (1991) 2 SCC 375 , speakin g through Just i ce Fatima Beevi, held as follow s :

¶44

“3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure i s meant to achieve a so c ial purpose. The object is t o prevent vagrancy and d e stitution. It provides a speed y remedy for the supply o f food, clothing, and shelter t o the deserted wife...”

¶45

13. Thus, the purpose of S e ction 125 Cr.P.C. is to protec t abandoned w ives who are unable to main t ain themselves from vagranc y and destitution, t o grant social justice to a destitute woman, child, or infir m parents. M o reover, in view of the admi t ted relationship between th e parties, the petitioner cannot escape his responsibility to maintain th e respondents.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to disput e the above said factual and legal position.

¶47

SUNENA 2024.09.10 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶48

Page 6 of 6

¶49

15. A ccordingly, I find no gr o und is made out that calls fo r

¶50

interference in the impugned order. As such, the present petition i s

¶51

dismissed.

¶52

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

¶53

However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed

¶54

as an expres s ion of opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶55

09.09.2024 Sunena

¶56

(Nidhi Gupta) Judge

¶57

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶58

SUNENA 2024.09.10 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Rahul Chaudhary v. Anjali and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Chaudhary v. Anjali and Others

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

Gurjeet Kaur Dhaliwal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Suman Devi Vs State of Haryana

Kirandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bhagwanti Devi Alias Bhago Alias Bhagwati Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rekha Rani Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Shubham Alias Vicky Vs State of Haryana