Manju and Another v. Bihari Lal @ Vijay

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶1The present revision petition has been preferred for enhancement against the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Rewari under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. vide which the interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month (Rs.3,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/- to petitioner No.2) was awarded to the petitioners, wife and minor daughter of the respondent.

¶2The   marriage   between   petitioner   No.1   and   respondent   was solemnised on 16.01.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Out of this wedlock, one female child born. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and 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 22.05.2024 granted interim maintenance allowance of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioners  inter alia  contends that the respondent is employed in a private insurance company and the interim maintenance assessed by the learned Family Court is too meagre and is not in consonance with the actual income of the respondent who is working in a private company and is earning Rs.60,000/- per month.  It is further contended that petitioner No.1 is bringing up her daughter whose school fee for the session 2024-25 is Rs.87,400/- and apart from the tuition fee i.e. Rs.3,950/-, she is also paying Rs.1,000/- per month as transport charges.

¶4I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.

¶5The 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 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 fall within the constitutional   sweep   of  Article   15(3)   reinforced   by   Article   39   of   the Constitution of India.

¶6A 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." , t3o-=ud1e "ench of the 7on>/$e (u'retie Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of  !"arat (199#) $ SCC $79, s'ea9in1 throu1h =ustice Fai?an @ddin+ o'ined as fo$$o3s: "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 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."

¶7,nother o/jecti*e the $e1is$ature has sou1ht to achie*e /& this 'ro*ision is to 'ro*ide 0aintenance pendente lite to the a''$icant s'ouse durin1 'roceedin1s etier1in1 out of 0atritionia$ dis'utes so that the she4he can 0aintain herse$f4hitise$f+ ha*e sufficient funds to 'ursue the $iti1ation+ and not suffer at the instance of the aff$uent s'ouse.

¶8.here is a 1enera$ tendenc& on the 'art of the 3ife to ati'$if& her needs and the hus/and to concea$ his actua$ incotie+ 0a9in1 it difficu$t to detertiine the earnin1 ca'acit& of the ri*a$ c$aitiants 3ith eAactitude. .he ri*a$ c$aitiants 0ust scru'u$ous$& /rin1 on record their actua$ res'ecti*e earnin1 ca'acities in order for the Court to arri*e at <uantuti of 0aintenance 3hich is just and fair in tertis of 'rinci'$e of e<uistatus. .he <uantuti of 0aintenance CRR!F"#$%$#&'&( #(# 0ust /e justifia/$e and rea$istic to 'ro*ide succour to the de'endent s'ouse and a$so to a*oid occurrence of the t3o eAtreties of the 0aintenance /ein1 either 'a$tr& or eAtra*a1ant+ ensurin1 that neither of the t3o is reduced to a $ife of 'enur&. .he ade<uac& of the 0aintenance a$$o3ance has to /e detertiined /& the &ardstic9 of the de'endent s'ouse /ein1 a/$e to $ead a $ife of reasona/$e cotifort. ;. Bhi$e dea$in1 3ith the issue of 0aintenance in extenso, a t3o =ud1e /ench of the 7on>/$e (u'retie Court in R)*nes+ ,. Ne+) )n- )n.t+er !&'&1" & SCC /&(+ $aid do3n the criteria for detertiinin1 <uantuti of 0aintenance and issued the fo$$o3in1 directions: "%%% Criteria for determinin& '!ant!m of maintenan(e

(i) The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

¶82The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non/working wife. Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and others

(1997) 7 SCC 7. Refer to Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112.

¶83In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant/wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

¶84On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications. Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan

(2019) 12 SCC 303.

(ii) A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316.

¶85The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.

(iii) Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub/section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning or from any other source.

(iv) Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

(v) The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v. Smt. Saroj Hegde 40 (2007) DLT 16 laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance : "1. Status of the parties.

¶2Reasonable wants of the claimant.

¶3The independent income and property of the claimant.

¶4The number of persons, the non/applicant has to maintain.

¶5The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

¶6Non/applicant's liabilities, if any.

¶7Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.

¶8Payment capacity of the non/applicant.

¶9Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non/applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.

¶10The non/applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

¶11The amount awarded under section 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/24 of the Act. 17."

(vi) Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable." xxx xxx xxx V% )inal Dire(tions

¶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) %ss!e of overla**in& "!risdi(tion

¶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 (+) ,ayment of %nterim -aintenan(e

¶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, throughout the country. (() Criteria for determinin& t.e '!ant!m of maintenan(e

¶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 w.i(. maintenan(e is to +e 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) /nfor(ementti/1e(!tion of orders of maintenan(e

¶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." CRR!F"#$%$#&'&( #$# -0. :n *ie3 of the a/o*e+ this Court finds no force in the ar1utients ad*anced /& $earned counse$ for the 'etitioners.  ,t this sta1e+ on$& interiti 0aintenance is 1ranted to the 'arties and the 'arties are &et to 'ro*e their res'ecti*e c$aitis /& adducin1 e*idence. --. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record with his able assistance, it transpires that petitioner No.1-wife is well qualified as JBT teacher and has the potential to earn her livelihood. The facts of the case would be squarely covered by the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur (2010) 15 SCC 372 and Anu Kaul v. Rajeev Kaul (2009) 13 SCC 209 and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in X v. Y passed in MAT. APP. (F.C.) 78/2023 decided on 11.10.2023 and the Court below has duly considered the material placed before it for determining the quantum of maintenance. A careful and just balance has been drawn, keeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and the high cost of living corresponding to the reasonable needs of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit. 6othin1 o/ser*ed hereina/o*e sha$$ /e construed as eA'ression of o'inion of this Court on 0erits of the case and the tria$ Court sha$$ 'roceed 3ithout /ein1 'rejudiced /& o/ser*ations of this Court. !HARPREET SINGH BRAR" JUDGE '$.'7.&'&( Bhether s'ea9in14reasoned : )es46o Bhether re'orta/$e : )es46o

117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-868-2024 Date of decision: 08.07.2024 Manju and another ....Petitioners Versus Bihari Lal @ Vijay ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.