Veer Singh v. Navjot Kaur

CRR(F)-211-2024 (O&M)                                      1 217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-211-2024 (O&M) Date  ! De"#$# %& 2'(0)(2024 *EER +INGH (((Pet#t# %e, *e,$-$ NA*JOT .AUR (((Re$/ %0e%t CORAM& HON1B2E MR( JU+TICE HARPREET +INGH BRAR Present:   Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent. *** Ha,/,eet +#%34 B,a,5 J( (O,a6)

¶1The petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar in case bearing No. MNT/125/117/2022 titled as Navjot Kaur Vs. Veer Singh, whereby petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent-wife.

¶2The marriage between the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized on 27.10.2016 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the said wedlock. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. Petitioner-husband contested the claim made by respondent and filed reply to the said petition. Learned Family Court, Amritsar vide impugned order dated 28.08.2023 awarded interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of respondent-wife. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has CRR(F)-211-2024 (O&M)                                      2

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband inter alia contends that learned Family Court below has fallen into grave error by awarding an exorbitant amount of interim maintenance in favour of respondent-wife as learned Family Court has not considered the fact that respondent-wife is a well qualified lady and she is M.Sc. (Maths) and B.Ed. and she is also doing a job in a School at Amritsar. Besides this, she is also running a tuition centre and having monthly income of more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. She also have moveable and immoveable property in her name and father of respondent-wife has also retired from Police Department and he is also drawing pension of Rs. 50,000/- per month.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner on the ground that respondent is the legally wedded wife of petitioner-husband and he is morally and legally duty bound to pay maintenance to her.

¶5I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file with their able assistance.

¶6The 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 wo-men, children and infirm parents. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. were en-acted as a measure to further social justice and protect dependent women, chil-CRR(F)-211-2024 (O&M)                                      3 dren and parents, which also fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

¶7A 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: "3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and des-titution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife." A two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479, speaking through Justice Fa-izan Uddin, opined as follows: "15. ... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision con-tained 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 vag-rancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provi-sions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, chil-dren and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Sec-tion 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 help-less state of distress, destitution and starvation."

¶8Another objective the legislature has sought to achieve by this provi-sion is to provide maintenance pendente lite to the applicant spouse during pro-ceedings 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.

¶9There 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 determ-ine the earning capacity of the rival claimants with exactitude. The rival CRR(F)-211-2024 (O&M)                                      4 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.

¶10While 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 is-sued the following directions: "VI Final Directions

¶130In 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:

(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction

¶131To 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:

(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 proceed-ing:

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

(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modi-fication or variation, it would be required to be done in the same pro-CRR(F)-211-2024 (O&M)                                      5

(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance

¶132The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclos-ures 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.

(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance

¶133For 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.

¶134The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be neces-sary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.

(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded

¶135We 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.

(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance

¶136For 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."

¶11Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court does not filed any merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, the amount of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court below is only interim in nature subject to adjustment at the time of final disposal and parties are yet to prove their respective pleadings before the learned Family Court by adducing evidence in their support. Perusal of record indicates that petitioner is serving in B.S.F. at the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Pharmacist) posted in Jammu region and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 59,185/- and net salary of Rs. 52,437/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned orderAJAY GOSWAMI CRR(F)-211-2024 (O&M)                                      6 which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being bereft of any merit.

¶12Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

¶13Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as e pression of opinion of this !ourt on "erits of the case and the trial !ourt shall proceed #ith$ out being prejudiced b% observations of this !ourt. (HARPREET +INGH BRAR) JUDGE 2'(0)(2024 Ajay Goswami