Allowed¶51

Nitin Vohra v. Pritima @ Hunny and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2025CRM-M/23631/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance/execution quashing: Section 528 BNSS petition allowed; Family Court Panipat execution order dated 27.03.2025 directing Rs.10 lakh lump-sum set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court order dated 29.07.2024 (SLP (Crl.) 6389/2024) reducing wife's maintenance to Rs.50,000 p.m. and prior payments of Rs.25 lakh and Rs.2 lakh; execution claim of Rs.1.09 crore; Section 125 Cr.P.C. social-justice object; Vimala (1991) 2 SCC 375; Rajnesh (2021) 2 SCC 324 enforcement directions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P5) set aside; matter remanded to the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Panipat to decide as per the Supreme Court's direction/order dated 29.07.2024; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶51

Nitin Vohra Vs Pritima @ Hunny and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P5) passed in CIS No.CRM/42/24, case No.08/2024 by the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Panipat, directing payment of Rs.10 lacs to the respondents up to 20.05.2025, should be allowed. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

This Court found no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, and decided the present petition in limine so as to save the respondent's litigation cost and the Court's judicial time.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order overlooked that maintenance had been reduced to Rs.50,000/- by the Supreme Court and that the petitioner had paid Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-; an order overlooking the Supreme Court's judgment and directing huge lump-sum amounts in a short span of time might amount to injustice towards the petitioner.

¶50

Key takeaways

Maintenance proceedings must be conducted alive to the legislative intent behind Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents.obiter¶21
The petition is allowed and the order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P5) is set aside.ratio¶51
The matter is remanded to the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Panipat to take decision on the petition as per the direction/order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Kirti Singh, J., oral) allowed a petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 and set aside an execution-stage order dated 27.03.2025 of the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Panipat (CIS No.CRM/42/24, case No.08/2024) directing the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondents by 20.05.2025. The executing court had computed arrears at the original rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per month under the order dated 16.01.2024, overlooking that the Supreme Court (SLP (Crl.) No.6389 of 2024, order dated 29.07.2024) had reduced the wife's maintenance from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month and directed payment of Rs.25 lacs, and that the petitioner had already paid Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-. Holding that an order overlooking the Supreme Court's judgment and directing huge lump-sum payments in a short span might amount to injustice, and drawing on Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) (1991) 2 SCC 375 (social purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C.) and Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 (criteria and enforcement directions for maintenance), the Court remanded the matter to the Family Court, Panipat to decide in terms of the Supreme Court's order dated 29.07.2024; pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

¶1

CRM-M-23631-2025 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Sr. No.106 CRM-M-23631-2025(O&M) Date of decision : 03.05.2025

¶4

Nitin Vohra ..... Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Pritima @ Hunny and another ..... Respondents

¶7

CORAM: sHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶8

Present: Mr. Arzoo Modi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

¶10

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

¶11

The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023) has been preferred for quashing of order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P5) passed in CIS No.CRM/42/24 case No.08/2024 passed by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Panipat whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.10 lacs to the respondents upto 20.05.2025.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnised on 28.07.2013. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Family Court vide order dated 16.01.2024 granted maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of respondent No.1 and Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.2 per month from the date of filing of the petition. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of a revision petition bearing

¶13

No.CRR(F)-216 of 2024 before this Court, which was dismissed on

¶14

Ramandeep Singh 2025.05.09 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-23631-2025 (O&M) 2

¶16

08.04.2024. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner preferred SLP (Crl.) No.6389 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, reduced the maintenance granted to respondent No.1 from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- while maintenance of Rs.50,000/- granted to respondent No.2 was sustained vide order dated 29.07.2024. Further, the petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.25 lacs to respondent No.1 within a period of one month from the order dated 29.07.2024. Prior to the passing of the order dated 29.07.2024, the respondents had filed an execution application for the recovery of Rs.1,09,00,000/- as per order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned trial Court whereinunder, the impugned order dated 27.03.2025, was passed, per which the petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to respondent No.1 on the next date of hearing which has been fixed for 20.05.2025, by overlooking the fact that the amount of maintenance to be paid had been reduced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also that the petitioner had already paid a sum total of Rs.25,00,000/- as also Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that while passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court has failed to consider the facts that the petitioner has already paid Rs.25 lacs on 27.08.2024, and Rs.2 lacs on 27.03.2025 to the respondents. The fact that the quantum of maintenance awarded to respondent No.1 has also been reduced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The Executing Court has even overlooked the financial capacity of the petitioner while passing the impugned order, since it is very difficult to pay such a lumpsum Ramandeep Singh 2025.05.09 12:34I attest to the accuracy andamount in such a short span of time, especially, in view of the fact that huge integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-23631-2025 (O&M) 3

¶19

amounts have already been paid by the petitioner. This fact has also been totally ignored while passing the impugned order.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The present petition is decided in limine in order to save litigation cost of the respondent and also to save the judicial time of the Court.

¶21

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.

¶22

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:

¶23

“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.”

¶24

7. T he adequacy of the maintenance allowance has to be

¶25

determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse and children being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort.

¶26

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:

¶27

VI Final Directions

¶28

Ramandeep Singh 2025.05.09 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-23631-2025 (O&M) 4

¶30

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:

¶31

(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction

¶32

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:

¶33

(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:

¶34

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

¶35

(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

¶36

(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance

¶37

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.

¶38

Ramandeep Singh 2025.05.09 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CRM-M-23631-2025 (O&M) 5

¶40

( c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded

¶44

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.

¶45

(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance

¶46

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."

¶47

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court makes it evident that the decision was taken on the execution petition for recovery of arrears computed as per the order dated 16.01.2024 whereby maintenance was ordered to be paid at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. The fact that the maintenance amount had been reduced to Rs.50,000/- by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and also the fact that the petitioner had paid Rs.25,00,000/- to the respondents on the direction of the Hon’ble Apex

¶48

Ramandeep Singh 2025.05.09 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

CRM-M-23631-2025 (O&M) 6

¶50

Court and thereafter, paid another amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as part of maintenance was overlooked while passing the impugned order. Infact, vide the said order, the petitioner was directed to make further payment of Rs.10,00,000/- on the next date fixed i.e. 20.05.2025, i.e. in a short span of time. Such an order overlooking the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and directing payment of huge lump-sum amounts in a short span of time might amount to injustice towards the petitioner.

¶51

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P5) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Panipat to take decision on the petition as per direction/order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶52

. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

03.05.2025 Ramandeep Singh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶55

Ramandeep Singh 2025.05.09 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nitin Vohra v. Pritima @ Hunny and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Vohra v. Pritima @ Hunny and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manav Sood Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Arshdeep Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kirandeep Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Raman Nath Alias Raman Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mohan Vs State of Haryana