Dismissed

Atul Sharma v. Niloo Dhawan and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Aug 2024CRR(F)/689/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 226/482 type proceeding challenging a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance order, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petition. Upholding the Family Court's assessment of the petitioner's income as sufficient, the Court ruled that the wife's earning capacity is not a ground to deny maintenance, emphasizing Section 125's social justice objective to prevent destitution.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the maintenance order was dismissed, leaving the Family Court order intact.

Atul Sharma Vs Niloo Dhawan and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

108 Date of order: 08.08.2024

¶4

CRR-F-689-2024(O&M)

Atul Sharma

…..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Niloo Dhawan & Others

¶9

…..Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the applicant/petitio n er.

Nidhi Gupta, J.

CRM-28726-2024

This is an application u nder Section 482 Cr.P.C. fo r

¶16

preponing t h e date already fixed in the m ain case to an early date o f hearing.

¶17

After going through th e contents of the application , which is su p ported by affidavit of the applicant/petitioner, the same i s allowed sub j ect to all just exceptions and t h e main case is taken on boar d today itself.

¶18

MAIN CASE

¶19

Challenge in the presen t petition is to the order date d 07.02.2024 p assed by learned Principal J u dge, Family Court, Faridabad , whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/husband

¶20

SUNENA 2024.08.13 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

has been di r ected to pay final maintenan c e of Rs.80,000/- per month t o respondent No.1/wife; Rs.10,000/- each p e r month to respondents No. 2 and 3/minor daughter and minor son of th e parties, from the date of filin g the petition a long with litigation expenses o f Rs.10,000/-.

¶23

The petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that the pet i tioner is taking care of the ent i re educational expenses of th e children. On the other hand, respondent N o .1 has filed false cases agains t the petition e r and is harassing him. More o ver, it is the respondent No. 1 who had d eserted the petitioner. As s uch, she is not entitled t o maintenanc e . It is also submitted that resp o ndent No.1 has also conceale d her educati o nal qualifications from the lea r ned Family Court and has als o not disclose d that she had been gainfully employed before the marriag e and is also now working in an insurance co m pany. It is accordingly, prayed

¶24

that the imp u gned order be set aside.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

perused the case file in great detail.

¶28

5. Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitione r was married to respondent No.1 on 23.04. 2 004. Two children/respondent s No.2 and 3 w ere born out of their wedloc k . Respondent No.2/daughter i s currently ag e d about 15 years, whereas res p ondent No.3/son is aged abou t 13 years. A s per the record, the parties a r e living separately from 2005 , when the p e titioner had gone to Canada and had abandoned his famil y

¶29

SUNENA 2024.08.13 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

leaving the m behind in India. Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed o n

¶32

26.04.2018.

¶33

6. At the very outset, learn e d counsel for the petitioner ha s admitted th e factum of marriage and the r e lationship between the parties. Learned counsel has also admitted that his income in Canada is about Rs. 6 lakh per mo n th. It has been stated that aft e r tax and other deductions, th e carry home salary of the petitioner is a b out Rs.4,20,000/- per month . Perusal of i m pugned order shows that after consideration of the entire ora l and docum e ntary evidence produced by t he parties before the learned Family Cour t , the learned Family Court fou n d that in his cross-examinatio n dated 09.10.2023, the petitioner had admit t ed that his net annual salary i s Rs.1,37,410 Canadian Dollars, which is ab o ut Rs.84 lakh, which comes t o about Rs.7 l a kh per month. All that is requi r ed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i s that the pet i tioner have ‘sufficient means’. In the present case, it is paten t that the petitioner has the requisite su f ficient means to support th e respondents.

¶34

As regards the conte n tion of the petitioner tha t respondent N o.1 is educated and able to m a intain herself, I find no merit in the same. In view of the admitted relations h ip between the parties, it is th e moral and l e gal obligation of the petitioner to maintain the respondents . Moreover, i n similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case o f “Chaturbhuj Vs. Sitabhai” Law Finder Doc ID # 135040 , has held that merel y because th e wife is earning something d o es not imply that she is no t SUNENA entitled to maintenance. Again in the c a se of “Shailja & Another Vs. 2024.08.13 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

Khobbanna” Law Finder Doc ID # 836697, t he Hon’ble Supreme Court ha s

¶37

held that: -

¶38

“Wi fe and son granted maintenanc e of Rs. 25,000/- by Family Cour t - High Court reduced the maintenan c e of Rs. 12,000/- on the groun d that wife was capable of earning - O r der of High Court set aside. (1) M erely because wife is capable o f earning is not sufficient reaso n to reduce the maintenance.

¶39

(2) W hether wife is capable of ear n ing or whether she is actuall y earn i ng are two different requireme n ts.”

¶40

8. Even further, the learne d Family Court also found tha t the respondents are staying at the house of father of respondent No.1 ; whereas the petitioner is residing in Canada .

¶41

9. It is oft-repeated and no longer res integra that Sectio n 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justic e to protect abandoned wife , children an d parents from vagrancy an d destitution. In “ Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat & Another” (1996) 4 SCC 479, the Hon’bl e Supreme Co u rt has opined as follows:

¶42

“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 support. The provisions i n Section 125 provide a speed y remedy to those women , children and destitute parent s

¶43

SUNENA 2024.08.13 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

¶44

Page 5 of 5

¶45

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 …”

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to disput e

¶47

the above said factual and legal position.

¶48

11. 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.

¶49

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

¶50

08.08.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶51

SUNENA 2024.08.13 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

Atul Sharma v. Niloo Dhawan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Sharma v. Niloo Dhawan and Anr.

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

Simerjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Harish Kumar Arya Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jaswinder Kaur @ Joginder Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Seeta Rani Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kuldeep Kaur and Anr. Vs Jasvir Singh

Bindu and Another Vs Harmesh Mattu @ Hamesh Mattu