Wife sought enhancement of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court held she was able-bodied and postgraduate-qualified with no evidence of inability to work, so she could not claim more than supportive maintenance, and dismissed the petition.
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.
CRR(F)-71-2021 (O&M)
Page 1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
222
CRR-F-71-2021(O&M)
Date of order: 09.12.2024
Sunita Rani
…..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Anup Heer
…..Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate and Ms. Arzoo, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the respondent.
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Prayer in the p resent pet i t i on f i led by the wife is for modif i cat i on of the order dated 01.02.2020 passed by learned Addit i onal Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalandhar, whereby in a proceeding under Sect i on 125 Cr.P.C. the pet i t i oner has been granted f i nal maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of inst i tut i on of the pet i t i on.
2 . Learned counsel for the pet i t i oner inter alia submits that the impugned meager maintenance of only ₹3000/– per month is liable to be enhanced in view of the fact that admit t edly, the respondent-husband is earning about Rs.10,000/- p.m. It is stated that accordingly the pet i t i oner is ent i tled to more maintenance as the amount of Rs.3,000/- p.m. is not enough to meet even the daily requirements of the pet i t i oner. The
DIVYANSHI pet i t i oner is residing at her parental house. Her father is a poor man and 2024.12.11 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRR(F)-71-2021 (O&M)
Page 2 of 7
he is only a tailor. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be modif i ed and the maintenance so granted to the pet i t i oner be enhanced.
3 . Learned counsel for the respondent-husband vehemently opposes prayer made on behalf of the pet i t i oner and submits that the pet i t i oner herself had f i led a pet i t i on under Sect i on 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has been allowed ex parte and vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, marriage between the part i es has been dissolved. A copy of the said judgement is handed over in Court and is taken on record. It is further submit t ed that the respondent-husband and other co-accused have been acquit t ed in FIR No. 51 dated 30.07.2015 under Sect i ons 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Stat i on Women Cell, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Jalandhar. A copy of the said judgment has been handed over in Court which is taken on record.
4 . Learned counsel for the pet i t i oner does not dispute the above
said facts.
6 . I have heard learned counsel for the part i es and perused the case f i le in great detail.
7 . Perusal of record of the case shows that the pet i t i oner was
married to the respondent on 05.03.2014. No child was born out of their
DIVYANSHI 2024.12.11 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRR(F)-71-2021 (O&M)
Page 3 of 7
wedlock. The present pet i t i on under Sect i on 125 Cr.P.C. was f i led by the pet i t i oner on 01.09.2015 i.e. within less than one year of marriage.
8 . It is the content i on of the pet i t i oner that the respondent is earning about Rs.10,000/- p.m. and, therefore, impugned maintenance deserves to be enhanced. However, it has been categorically admit t ed by the pet i t i oner at Bar that she herself is a postgraduate in Punjabi. However, she is not working despite being able-bodied. It has also come on record that prior to her marriage, the pet i t i oner was doing job, however, stopped working afer get t ng married to the respondent. Ý
9 . In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ Bhushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen Alias Harpreet Kaur (SC)”: Law Finder Doc Id # 547724 , has held that “ However, having regard to qualifications that Wife possesses, there is no reason why she ought not to be in a position to also maintain herself in future…” . Similar view has been taken in case of “ Anu Kaul vs. Rajeev Kaul (SC)”: Law Finder Doc Id# 183207 .
High Court in “ Smt. Shilpashree J. M. & Others Vs. Gurumanjunatha A.S. & Others”, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 36, Law Finder Doc ID # 2260157, wherein it has been held as under:-
“8. The records also disclosed that before marriage petitioner No.1 was working as is evident from her cross examination. Her cross examination also reveals that she was residing along with her mother. It is also evident from her admission that, even after her
DIVYANSHI 2024.12.11 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRR(F)-71-2021 (O&M)
Page 4 of 7
desertion she continued to stay in the rented house along with her mother itself and the allegation does establish that she was not interested to stay with respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is an admitted fact that at the instance of the present petitioner No. 1, a separate house was taken on rent and now the petitioners i.e., wife and child are residing therein along with her mother, but she was reluctant to stay with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law. It is an admitted fact that respondent No. 1- husband is running provision stores. Further, he is having responsibility of taking care of his mother and unmarried sister. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was working prior to her marriage and it is asserted that after marriage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation as to why she is incapable of working now. She is not supposed to sit idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and she is also legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and she can seek only supportive maintenance from her husband".
(Emphasis supplied)
11. The respondent had admit t edly also f i led a pet i t i on under Sect i on 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, it was the pet i t i oner who had refused to go back to the matrimonial home. As such, as per the provision of Sect i on 125(4) Cr.P.C., the pet i t i oner would not be ent i tled to maintenance. Admit t edly, at the t i me of passing of the impugned order, the respondent had produced his af Ï davit (Ex.PW1/A) to depose that he was f i red from his job with M/s. Singla Associates, Kala Amb, District Sirmaur as he used to take constant leaves due to lit i gat i on init i ated against him by the pet i t i oner. As such, the learned trial Court had taken him as a labourer and had presumed his income to Rs.9,000 to Rs.10,000/- p.m. and
DIVYANSHI 2024.12.11 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRR(F)-71-2021 (O&M)
Page 5 of 7
thus granted the impugned maintenance. It is also not disputed by learned counsel for the pet i t i oner that the pet i t i on f i led by the pet i t i oner under Sect i on 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2023; and that the respondent and other co-accused have been acquit t ed in FIR No. 51 dated 30.07.2015 under Sect i ons 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Stat i on Women Cell, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Jalandhar.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner is able-bodied and well qualified. The petitioner has placed nothing on record in support of her contention that she has no work. As such, she is only entitled to supportive maintenance, if at all.
Court in “ Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)” (1991) 2 SCC 375 , speaking through Just i ce Fat i ma Beevi, held as follows:
“3. Sect i on 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and dest i tut i on. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife...”
DIVYANSHI 2024.12.11 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRR(F)-71-2021 (O&M)
Page 6 of 7
14. Again, in “ Kirt i kant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat”
(1996) 4 SCC 479, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined as follows:
“15. ...While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Sect i on 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social just i ce to the woman, child and inf i rm parents, etc. and to prevent dest i tut i on 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 Sect i on 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and dest i tute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Sect i on 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Sect i on 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be lef t in a helpless state of distress, dest i tut i on and starvat i on…”
justice to a destitute woman, child, or infirm parents. A bare reading of Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself indicates that maintenance is admissible to a wife who is ‘ unable to maintain herself’ . In the present case that is not so. As such no ground is made out that calls for interference in the impugned order.
16. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed above, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
DIVYANSHI 2024.12.11 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRR(F)-71-2021 (O&M)
Page 7 of 7
09.12.2024
Divyanshi
(Nidhi Gupta) Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable
Yes/No Yes/No
DIVYANSHI 2024.12.11 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month granted to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be enhanced.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen Alias Harpreet KaurRelied on¶9
Law Finder Doc Id # 547724
Anu Kaul vs. Rajeev KaulRelied on¶9
Law Finder Doc Id# 183207
Smt. Shilpashree J. M. & Others Vs. Gurumanjunatha A.S. & OthersRelied on¶10
2023 SCC OnLine Kar 36, Law Finder Doc ID # 2260157 · Who else cites this
Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)Applied¶13
(1991) 2 SCC 375 · Who else cites this
Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of GujaratApplied¶14
(1996) 4 SCC 479 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunita Rani
Anup Heer
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
