Sukhbir v. Divya and Anr

CRR(F)-1239-2024 (O&M)                                      1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-1239-2024 (O&M) Rese !e" #$%         2&'09'2024 P #$#($)e" #$%    2*'09'2024 +U,HBIR '''PETITIONER -e s(s DI-YA AND ANOTHER '''RE+PONDENT+ CORAM% HON.B/E MR' JU+TICE HARPREET +INGH BRAR Present: Mr. Harsh Mehla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET +INGH BRAR J' (ORA/)

¶1The petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonipat in case bearing No. MNT/43/2023 titled as Divya and Another Vs. Sukhbir, whereby petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month (Rs. 10,000/- each to both the re-spondents i.e. wife and minor son) as maintenance.

¶2The marriage between the petitioner-husband and respondent No. 1-wife was solemnized on 28.02.2016 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. One male child i.e. respondent No. 2 was born out of the said wedlock. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. Petitioner-husband contested the claim made by respondents and filed reply to the said petition. Learned Family Court, Sonipat vide impugned order dated 23.07.2024 awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month (Rs. 10,000/- each to both the respondents i.e. wife and minor son) in favour of respondents. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this revision petition. CRR(F)-1239-2024 (O&M)                                      2

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband inter alia contends that learned Family Court has fallen into grave error by awarding an exorbitant amount of Rs. 20,000/- as maintenance in favour of the respondents and ignored the fact that petitioner is doing a private job and earning only Rs. 18,500/- per month and learned Family Court has also ignored the heavy entries of various amounts made in the bank account of respondent No. 1. Moreover, respondent No. 1-wife is a graduate and she is able to earn her livelihood and learned Family Court below has also ignored the fact that father of the petitioner is a heart patient to whom by-pass surgery has been advised and he is dependent upon the petitioner for his treatment.

¶4I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file with his able assistance.

¶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 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-dren and parents, which also fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. CRR(F)-1239-2024 (O&M)                                      3

¶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 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."

¶7Another 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.

¶8There 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 claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capa-cities in order for the Court to arrive at quantum of maintenance which is just and I attest to the acfcuaraicry ainnd terms of principle of equistatus. The quantum of maintenance must be jus-CRR(F)-1239-2024 (O&M)                                      4 tifiable 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 extra-vagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The ad-equacy of the maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort.

¶9While 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-ceeding

(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 CRR(F)-1239-2024 (O&M)                                      5

¶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."

¶10Having 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 and learned Family Court has rightly assessed the income of the petitioner to be not less than Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month. Admittedly respondent No. 1 and 2 are wife and son of the petitioner, respectively and by virtue of this relationship, they are entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being bereft of any merit.

¶11Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (HARPREET +INGH BRAR) JUDGE Rese !e" #$%      2&'09'2024 P #$#($)e" #$% 2*'09'2024 Ajay Goswami