Dismissed

Amarjit Singh v. Iqbal Kaur and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Oct 2024CRR(F)/857/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Army pensioner filed a challenge opposing the Family Court's interim maintenance order for his wife and minor daughter. The Court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner's failure to disclose a lump-sum retirement payment, non-compliance with directions to file asset disclosures, and his potential income, relying on social justice principles.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the maintenance order was dismissed. The impugned order was not interfered with.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

209 CRR-F-857-2023(O&M) Date of order: 19.10.2024

Amarjit Singh

…..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Iqbal Kaur& Another

¶7

…..Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶9

Present:None for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for the respondents (thr o ugh VC).

¶11

¶12

Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶13

Challenge in the presen t petition is to the order date d

¶14

18.04.2023 p assed by the learned Principa l Judge, Family Court, Faridkot , whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been

¶15

directed to pay interim maintenance of R s.14,000/- per month to th e respondents (Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.6,000/ - per month t o respondent No.2/minor dau g hter) from the date of filing o f the applicati o n i.e. 07.06.2022. 2. None is present on behal f of the petitioner. Order sheet s show that n o tice was issued in the matter o n 30.05.2023. Vide order date d 26.02.2024, t he petitioner was directed to f ile an affidavit detailing therein all his mova b le and immovable properties a nd his income from all source s by the next d ate of hearing i.e. 12.09.2024 and also to bring a demand draf t for a sum o f Rs.1,50,000/- in the name o f respondent-wife. On the nex t date of he a ring i.e. 12.09.2024, neither t he petitioner was present i n

¶16

SUNENA person befo r e this Court nor was there an y representation on his behalf , 2024.10.22 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CRR-F-857-2023(O&M)

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

nor had any affidavit as directed vide previ o us order dated 26.2.2024, bee n filed. As suc h , it was directed that the pre s ence of the petitioner be no w secured bef o re the Court through the local SHO concerned for today. Today, neit h er the aforesaid order dated 12.09.2024 has been complied with nor is t here any representation on b e half of the petitioner. As such , the present case is being heard and d e cided in the absence of th e petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents inter alia submit s that the petitioner is retired from the Army and is receiving a pension o f about Rs.40,000/- per month. Upon his retirement, the petitioner has als o received ab o ut Rs.30-40 lakh from his department. It is submitted that th e petitioner w as in an illicit relation with one Premlata; and in fact, i n connivance w ith said Premlata the petitioner had also tried to kill the mino r child/respondent No.2 by throwing respondent No.2 from third floor of th e building du e to which her right thigh was fractured and she remained i n coma for fi v e days in Alchemist Hospital, C handigarh. It was only on th e asking of he r parents-in-law that responden t No.1did not take any action i n the matter. Moreover, the petitioner has n o other liability. On the othe r hand, the r e spondents are totally depend e nt on the petitioner for thei r sustenance. It was also submitted that th e respondent No.1 is trying t o sustain herself and her minor daughter b y borrowing money from he r parents and doing some labour work. The r espondent No.1 is a househol d lady. She has no source of income. Neithe r does she know any skill wor k from which s he and earn her living. As such, they are totally dependent o n

¶21

SUNENA 2024.10.22 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

CRR-F-857-2023(O&M)

¶23

Page 3 of 6

¶24

the petitioner. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition b e dismissed.

¶25

No other argument is made on behalf of th e

¶26

respondents

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the respondents and

¶28

perused the case file in great detail.

¶29

A perusal of the recor d of the case shows that th e petitioner w as married to respondent No.1 on 07.11.2010. Responden t No.2 was b o rn out of their wedlock in the year 2012. Due to matrimonia l discord, the parties are living separately sin c e 2019. Present petition unde r Section 125 C r.P.C. was filed on 07.06.2022.

¶30

In passing the impugned order, the learned Family Cour t had duly ta k en note of the fact that the petitioner was stated to hav e received ₹3 0 –40 lakhs on retirement. Be f ore the ld. Family Court, th e petitioner h a d merely stated that he had n ot received his full retiremen t benefits, ho w ever, had failed to disclose t h e amount received. Perusal o f the present petition shows that it has n owhere been denied by th e petitioner t h at he has received Rs.30-40 l a kh as retiral benefits from th e Army. In fac t , the petitioner has stated in p a ra 11(e) of the present petitio n that he has 3 kanal of agricultural land. A p e rusal of the pension slip of th e petitioner f o r the month of March 2023 ( A nnexure P4) shows that he i s getting pen s ion of only Rs.20,362/- per m onth. The petitioner has als o failed to place on record his Affidavit of I n come, Assets and Liabilities a s

¶31

directed by this Court vide order dated 26.2.2024. It would therefor e

¶32

SUNENA 2024.10.22 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶33

CRR-F-857-2023(O&M)

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

appear that t he petitioner is attempting to c onceal his actual income. Eve n otherwise, t h e inappreciable conduct of th e petitioner is evident from hi s deliberate d i sobedience of the directions o f this Court, as also his paten t dereliction i n fulfilling his moral and le g al responsibility towards th e respondents.

¶36

8. Moreover, even if argu m ent of the petitioner that he i s receiving on l y about ₹20,000/– per month, by way of pension, were to b e accepted, t h e same is liable to be reject e d in view of judgment of th e Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan” (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 661024, wherein it has been categorically held as follows: –

¶37

“ B. Criminal Procedure Cod e , 1973 Section 125 Grant o f mai n tenance to wife - Plea of hus b and that he was not doing jo b and h ad no means to pay cannot b e accepted - These are only bal d excu s es - Held :-

¶38

(i) If the husband is he a lthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation t o support his wife.

¶39

(ii) It is the obligation of th e husband to maintain his wife - He cannot be permitted to ple a d that he is unable to maintai n the wife due to financial constr a ints as long as he is capable o f earning.” (Emphasis added)

¶40

09. Admittedly, the petitio n er does not suffer from an y physical infirmity and is healthy and able bo d ied.

¶41

10. Even otherwise, the gra n t of 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

¶42

SUNENA 2024.10.22 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶43

CRR-F-857-2023(O&M)

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

“ Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat & Another” (1996) 4 SCC 479,

¶46

the Hon’ble S upreme Court has opined as follows:

¶47

“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 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 …”

¶48

Again, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶49

“ Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)” (1991) 2 SCC 375 , has held as follows:

¶50

“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...”

¶51

12. 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, to 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.