Dismissed

Sandeep Singh v. Sukhjeet Kaur and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2024CRR(F)/43/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an interim maintenance order of Rs. 16,000/month awarded by a Family Court to the wife and minor child. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity and noting that the interim nature of the award requires balancing needs against the petitioner's financial status before final evidence is adduced.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the interim maintenance order of Rs. 16,000/- per month was dismissed as it was bereft of merit.

Sandeep Singh Vs Sukhjeet Kaur and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

�

��

�� 

�� !�"#$��%&�%&�� "#"'#(�!�"#$��)&�%&��

����

�� &&&��

+,*

***�-��-��**

&&&����

��$��.�/��&������

��

��

0000

��*��&��/�

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib in maintenance case No. MNT-125-115-2022 titled as “Sukhjeet Kaur etc. Vs. Sandeep Singh” whereby interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- per month (Rs. 8,000/- per month each to respondent No. 1-wife and minor son) has been awarded in favour of the respondents.

¶16

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 09.04.2014 as per Sikh rites and rituals. Out of this wedlock, one male child (respondent No. 2) were born. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondents. The learned Family Court vide order dated 11.12.2023 granted interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 16,000/- per month (Rs. 8,000/- per month each to respondent

¶17

AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.07.19 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶18

�

¶19

��

¶20

No. 1-wife and minor son). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that learned Family Court below has gravely erred in awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 16,000/- per month in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that respondent No. 1-wife has left the company of the petitioner with her own free will and without any justifiable cause. It is further contended that learned Family Court below has not taken into consideration the fact that petitioner is also paying Rs. 10,000/- per month as installment towards personal loan taken from HDFC Bank and further the petitioner is also paying Rs. 1290/- and Rs. 1190/- per month as installment to the loans obtained from Bajaj Finance.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by learned Family Court below while granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- in favour of respondents.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file with their able assistance.

¶24

The object and purpose behind granting interim maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage. At the same time, a just and careful balance must be struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon to punish the other spouse. The Courts are required to conduct the maintenance proceedings while being alive to the legislative intent behind the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C in its true spirit, which is to provide speedy

¶25

AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.07.19 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶26

�� 

¶27

assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. were enacted as a measure to further social justice and protect dependent women, children and parents, which also fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) (1991) 2 SCC 375 , speaking through Justice Fatima Beevi, opined that as follows:

¶29

“3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.”

¶30

A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D.

¶31

Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479 , speaking through Justice Faizan Uddin, opined as follows:

¶32

“15. ... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.”

¶33

Another objective the legislature has sought to achieve by this

¶34

provision is to provide interim maintenance pendente lite to the applicant spouse during proceedings emerging out of matrimonial disputes so that the she/he can maintain herself/himself, have sufficient funds to pursue the

¶35

litigation, and not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse.

¶36

AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.07.19 16:27

¶37

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶38

��

¶39

�

¶40

There is a general tendency on the part of the wife to amplify her needs and the husband to conceal his actual income, making it difficult to determine the earning capacity of the rival claimants with exactitude. The rival claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities in order for the Court to arrive at quantum of maintenance which is just and fair in terms of principle of equistatus. The quantum of maintenance must be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid occurrence of the two extremes of the maintenance being either paltry or extravagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The adequacy of the maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort.

¶41

While dealing with the issue of maintenance in extenso, a two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324 , laid down the criteria for determining quantum of maintenance and issued the following directions:

¶42

" VI Final Directions

¶43

130. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B - 1 to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:

¶44

(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction

¶45

131. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:

¶46

AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.07.19 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶47

��

¶48

¶49

(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or setoff, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding:

¶50

(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;

¶51

(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding

¶52

(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance

¶53

132. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.

¶54

( c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance

¶55

133. For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B III of the judgment.

¶56

134. The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.

¶57

(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded

¶58

135. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B-IV above.

¶59

(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance

¶60

136. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C may be applicable. The arder of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI."

¶61

AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.07.19 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶62

��

¶63

¶64

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court of of the opinion that learned Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib has rightly awarded Rs. 16,000/- as interim maintenance in favour of respondents after taking into consideration the economic status of the petitioner. Moreover, the amount of maintenance awarded is only interim in nature and the parties are yet to prove their respective pleadings by adducing evidence in their support. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court makes it evident that the Court below has duly considered the material placed before it for determining the quantum of maintenance. A careful and just balance has been drawn, keeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and high cost of living corresponding to the reasonable needs of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit.

¶65

Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

¶66

�� !��"��!�� #��!��

¶67

��*�� !�"#$��%&�%&�� "#"'#(�!�"#$��)&�%&�� ��

¶68

$�% &��'�� (��'�� $��% &�� (��'��

¶69

AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.07.19 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Sandeep Singh v. Sukhjeet Kaur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Singh v. Sukhjeet Kaur and Another

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

Asha Vs State of Haryana

Karan Vs State of Ut Chandigarh

Taranjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Baljinder Singh Malia Vs State of Punjab and Another

Rohit Alias Hingi and Another Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Nehra Vs Pooja and Another