Jasvir Kaur and Ors v. Pritpal Singh

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶1This order of mine shall dispose of both the aforementioned criminal revision petitions as they are version and cross version and challenge to impugned orders dated 21.05.2019 and 25.04.2018 has been made in both the petitions. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CRM-M-36342-2021 titled as Jasvir Kaur and others vs. Pritpal Singh.

¶2The present petition has been preferred against the impugned CRM-M-36342-2021 2

judgment dated 21.05.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Sangrur under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., vide which, the interim maintenance of Rs.13,000/- per month was awarded to the petitioners (Rs.7,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3), wife and sons of the respondent.

¶3The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 26.01.2009 in accordance with Sikh rites and rituals at Sirsa. Out of the wedlock, two male children were born. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the petitioners filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The respondent filed a reply and contested the claim made by the petitioners. The learned Family Court vide order dated 21.05.2019 granted maintenance allowance of Rs.13,000/- per month in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners and respondent have approached this Court by filing the present petitions.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that petitioner No.1 has no source of income to maintain herself and her minor children. The respondent is a government primary school teacher and his salary is more than Rs.50,000/- per month. Furthermore, parents of respondent are also owner of 2½ kilas of agricultural land and father of the respondent is also a pensioner and he also works at an Academy, from where he is drawing sufficient amount.

¶5Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner No.1 is working as private teacher, where she is getting a salary of Rs.20,000/- and she also gives tuitions and earns Rs.30,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 has left the company of the petitioner by her own will and she petitioners have filed the petition seeking maintenance only to extract money CRM-M-36342-2021 3

¶6Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that there are so many disputed questions of facts, which are to be decided at the time of trial.

¶7Pertinently, the object and purpose behind granting interim 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 women, children and infirm parents. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. were enacted as a measure to further social justice and protect dependent women, children and parents, which also falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

¶8A 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 destitution. 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 Faizan Uddin, opined as follows: "15. ... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind MANISHA CRM-M-36342-2021 4

that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution 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 Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 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 helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."

¶9Another objective the legislature has sought to achieve by this provision is to provide interim maintenance pendente lite to the applicant spouse during proceedings 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.

¶10However, there 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 determine the earning capacity of the rival claimants with exactitude. The rival 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 CRM-M-36342-2021 5

¶11While 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 interim maintenance and issued 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 proceeding:

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

(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

(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance

¶132The 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, CRM-M-36342-2021 6

(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 necessary 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."

¶12A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court makes it evident that the Court below has duly considered the material placed before it for determining the quantum of interim maintenance. Learned Court below has observed that the respondent is a government teacher and is drawing more than Rs.45,876/- per month as salary. A careful and just balance has been drawn, keeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and high cost of living corresponding to the reasonable needs of the petitioners, the conduct of the respondent-husband and the fact that petitioner Nos.2 and 3-minor sons are residing with petitioner no.1 and also attending a private school. Learned counsel for the respective petitioner(s) in both the cases have not been able to CRM-M-36342-2021 7

indicate any perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed being bereft of any merit.

¶13Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) August 08, 2024 JUDGE manisha

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

254-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.08.2024 1. CRM-M-36342-2021 JASVIR KAUR AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS V/S PRITPAL SINGH ...RESPONDENT 2. CRM-M-30823-2019 PRITPAL SINGH ...PETITIONER V/S JASVIR KAUR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Gurvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-36342 of 2021 & for respondents in CRM-M-30823 of 2019. Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-30823 of 2019 & for respondent in CRM-M-36342 of 2021. ****