Dismissed

Kewal Kumar Alias Kewal Sharma v. Neeraj Sharma

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Nov 2024CRR(F)/448/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought enhancement of monthly maintenance from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 10,000 under Section 127 Cr.P.C., granted by Family Court. Husband challenged on grounds of retirement and limited pension. Court found no perversity in the enhancement order, noting retiral benefits and pension, and dismissed the revision petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kewal Kumar Alias Kewal Sharma Vs Neeraj… — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

��

�� 

�� !"�# $%&%!'(��)��)��

¶5

**�+�,���-��+�,�.��*

�� )))��

/0.

��.��

)))��.��

��(��1�,��)��.��.��

��

��

��

��

2222

��.��)��,�

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula in petition filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., whereby the maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month, which was previously directed to be given by the petitioner to the respondent in petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- per month.

¶18

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 15.07.1982 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and from their wedlock, three children were born. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance and vide order dated 11.09.2012, maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- was awarded in favour of respondent-wife and vide impugned order dated 16.12.2023, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula, maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of respondent-wife. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this revision petition. AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.11.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

��

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband inter alia contends that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as while passing the same, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula, has ignored the fact that petitioner has retired from service and he is only getting the pension of Rs. 18,000/- per month, out of which, he has been burdened to pay Rs. 10,000/per month to respondent-wife. The petitioner is not in a position to pay such a hefty amount.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that petitioner has no other liability, whereas the respondent has brought up her three children and she is totally dependent upon the monthly maintenance given by the petitioner and she has filed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on account of the rising prices and inflation as there is manifold increase and also in view of the change in the pecuniary circumstances of the petitioner.

¶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 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 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 AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.11.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

��

¶26

¶27

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 provision is to provide 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 litigation, and not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse.

¶34

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

¶35

AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.11.13 14:16

¶36

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

��

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

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:

¶41

" VI Final Directions

¶42

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:

¶43

(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction

¶44

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:

¶45

(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:

¶46

AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.11.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

��

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

(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

¶51

(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance

¶52

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.

¶53

( c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded

¶57

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.

¶58

(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance

¶59

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."

¶60

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of record indicates that as per Ex. P-

¶61

3, the petitioner was employed in the Electrical Branch, Post Office, Sector-17, AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.11.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶62

��

¶63

¶64

Chandigarh and he was drawing salary of Rs. 39,712/- and at the time of his retirement, he has received retiral benefits amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- and apart from that he is also getting pension of Rs. 18,000/- per month as is evidence from Ex. R/A and Ex. R/B. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being bereft of any merit.

¶65