Dismissed

Surjit Singh v. Gurtej Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Nov 2024CRR(F)/1851/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to Family Court order granting a wife Rs.8,000 per month interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The husband's claims of meagre pension and mental ailment were not substantiated; the court relied on Supreme Court precedent on the social justice purpose of Section 125 and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Surjit Singh Vs Gurtej Kaur — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

225 CRR-F-1851-2023(O&M) Date of order: 13.11.2024

Surjit Singh

…..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Gurtej Kaur

…..Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present:Mr.Sylvester Stephen, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advoc a te for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶14

Challenge in the presen t petition is to the order date d 29.08.2023 p assed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barnala , whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been directed to p ay interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month from the dat e of filing the a pplication.

¶15

Mr. Sylvester Stephen, A dvocate puts in appearance o n behalf of t h e petitioner and files Vakaltnama with ‘no objection’ fro m previous co u nsel who is stated to have joined the AG Office. Fres h vakalatnam a on behalf of the petitioner is t a ken on record.

¶16

Learned counsel for the p etitioner inter alia submits tha t the petition e r is a 74-year-old pensioner w ho is getting pension of onl y Rs.33,000/- p er month; out of which he h a s been directed to pay interi m maintenanc e of Rs.8,000/- per month. It is s ubmitted that the petitioner i s

¶17

SUNENA 2024.11.19 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

also sufferin g from mental ailment. In this r e gard, learned counsel refers t o the medical record of the petitioner (Annexure P7) to substantiate the sai d averment. It is further contended that the r e spondent is the sister-in-law o f the petition e r who had contracted marria g e with him in connivance wit h her previou s husbandonly with the intention to extort money from th e petitioner. H owever, this fact has not been considered by the learned Family Cour t while passing the impugned order. It is accordingly praye d that the pre s ent petition be allowed, and th e impugned order be set aside.

¶20

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

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner an d

¶22

perused the case file in great detail.

¶23

It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he wa s married to t h e respondent on 17.02.2020. This is evident from the marriag e certificate ( A nnexure P5) wherein age of t h e petitioner is shown to be 6 9 years and th a t of the respondent is about 5 5 years and 2 months. It was th e second mar r iage of both the parties. The f irst wife of the petitioner ha d expired on 2 3.12.2018. The respondent is admittedly sister-in-law/Sali o f the petition e r. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the respondent had obtained div o rce from her previous husban d on 01.02.2020. The contention of the peti t ioner that the respondent h a d procured divorce from he r previous husband only with the intention to extort money from th e petitioner, i s a matter of trial and shall be p roved by the petitioner befor e

¶24

SUNENA 2024.11.19 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

the learned F amily Court. The parties are liv i ng separately since 27.07.2022. Present peti t ion under Section 125 Cr.P.C. w as filed on 20.08.2022.

¶27

As regards the mental h e alth of the petitioner, perusa l of his medical record (Annexure P7) show s that the same pertains to th e year 2022. A s regards the contention of th e petitioner that he is sufferin g from mental problem, the same is not made out from the medical record . As per the d ischarge summary dated 23.07.2022 “…no history of loss o f consciousne s s, no history of vomiting o r ENT bleed or seizure o r incontinenc e …”. In fact, “…no significant ab n ormalities...” were seen on th e NCCT (Non- C ontrast Computed Tomograph y ) of head of the petitioner. Th e rest of the m edical examination of the petitioner pertains to his abdome n as per whic h also no abnormality is detec t ed. In fact, the petitioner ha s hemoglobin of 15.2 gm. There is nothing w h atsoever on record to indicat e that the peti t ioner has any depression, or a n y other kind of mental issues.

¶28

It is by now a settl e d trend that in matters o f maintenanc e such as the present one, the 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. The t ruth usually lies somewhere i n between. I n any event, these a re all mat t ers of evidence. The truth o r otherwise o f the allegations and counter - allegations made by both th e parties can only be determined upon lea d ing of evidence. As such, it i s neither desi r able nor feasible for this Cou r t to interfere at this stage, le t alone return a finding in respect of the con t rary assertions made by eithe r

¶29

of the partie s .

¶30

SUNENA 2024.11.19 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

Page 4 of 6

¶32

9. Reliance may be place d upon the judgment of th e

¶33

Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan” (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 661024, has categorically held as follows: –

¶34

“ B. Criminal Procedure Cod e , 1973 Section 125 Grant o f mai n tenance to wife - Plea of hus b and that he was not doing jo b and h ad no means to pay cannot b e accepted - These are only bal d excu s es - Held :-

¶35

(i) If the husband is he a lthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation t o support his wife.

¶36

(ii) It is the obligation of th e husband to maintain his wife - He cannot be permitted to ple a d that he is unable to maintai n the wife due to financial constr a ints as long as he is capable o f earning.”

¶37

10. Even otherwise, the gra n t of 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

¶38

“ Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat & Another” (1996) 4 SCC 479,

¶39

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

¶40

“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

¶41

SUNENA 2024.11.19 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

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 …”

¶44

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 :

¶45

“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...”

¶46

12. 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 respondent.