This is a criminal revision against an interim maintenance order granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The challenge was dismissed as the petitioner failed to prove his inability to maintain his family.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page 1 of 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
111 Date of order: 13.08.2024
CRR-F-336-2024(O&M)
Rajinder Pal Singh
…..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Ramesh Rani & Others
…..Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr.Gandhi Lal Aggarwal, A dvocate for the petitioner.
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Challenge in the presen t petition is to the order date d 08.01.2024 p assed by the learned Principal J udge, Family Court, Camp at Sri Anandpur S a hib, whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., th e petitioner/h u sband has been directed to pay interim maintenance o f Rs.11,000/per month to the responde n ts (Rs.5,000/- per month t o respondent N o.1/wife and Rs.2,000/- each p er month to respondents No. 2 to 4/minor daughters), from the date of filing the petition, along wit h Rs.10,000/- a s litigation expenses.
SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Page 2 of 5
additional r e sponsibility of his aged and a iling 75-year-old mother as i s evident fro m her medical record (Annex u re P1). He is also paying th e expenses of the children. Respondent No.1 is also gainfully employed. It i s submitted t h at as such, the impugned main t enance be decreased.
3. No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner an d
perused the case file in great detail.
5. Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitione r
was marr i ed to respondent No. 1 on 26.11.2000. Thre e daughters/r e spondents No.2 to 4 were bor n out of their wedlock, who ar e admittedly i n the care and custody of respo n dent No.1. Due to matrimonia l discord, the p arties are living separately. Pr e sent petition under Section 12 5 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondents on 1 6.09.2019. Vide the impugne d
order, the respondents have been gra n ted interim maintenance o f Rs.11,000/- p er month ( Rs.5,000/- per mon t h to respondent No.1/wife an d Rs.2,000/- e a ch per month to respondents N o.2 to 4/minor daughters).
6. It is the contention of t h e petitioner that he is earnin g only meager pension of Rs.21,000/- per mo n th; and that respondent No.1 i s also gainfull y employed. Perusal of impugned order shows that on the basi s of prelimina r y evidence brought on record b y the parties it has been foun d by the learn e d Family Court that the mother of the petitioner is getting old age pension of Rs.1,000/- per month. M o reover, as the petitioner ha s retired from CRPF, he can get medical reimbursement in respect of an y
SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Page 3 of 5
medical exp e nses of his family members. The contention of the petitione r that he is p aying for the expenses of t h e children, was found to b e incorrect. The income of the petitioner was n ot yet proven on record.
7. 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 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 of the partie s .
8. However, 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,
the Hon’ble S upreme Court has opined as follows:
“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
SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Page 4 of 5
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 …”
“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...”
10. 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.
11. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Shamima
Farooqui v. Shahid Khan” (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 661024, ha s
categorically held as follows: –
SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Page 5 of 5
“ 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 :-
(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.
(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.”
counsel for t he petitioner is unable to dis p ute the above said factual an d legal positio n .
13. A ccordingly, I find no gr o und is made out that calls fo r interference in the impugned order. As such, the present petition i s
dismissed.
hereinabove shall be construed as an expre s sion of opinion on the merits o f
the matter.
13.08.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Family Court’s interim maintenance order absent evidence on the husband’s income.
Whether the petitioner’s inability to distinguish his age or pension liability exempts him from maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat & AnotherReferred¶30
(1996) 4 SCC 479 · Who else cites this
Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)Referred¶36
(1991) 2 SCC 375 · Who else cites this
Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid KhanReferred¶39
Law Finder Doc Id # 661024
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajinder Pal Singh
Ramesh Rani
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
