CRR(F)-443-2024 (O & M) 1 2024:PHHC:042751

104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH
CRR(F)-443-2024 (O & M)
Date of decision: 01.04.2024
SUDHIR
...PETITIONER
V/S
SHWETA
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Saransh Sabharwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
CRM-13654-2024

The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of

Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing present revision

petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

and delay of 22 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

MAIN CASE

1. The present petition has been preferred against the impugned

order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bhiwani in maintenance case No.MNT/125/182/2022, titled as Shweta vs.

Sudhir, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., vide which, the interim maintenance

of Rs.60,000/- per month was awarded to the respondent-wife of the petitioner.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was

solemnised on 01.12.2021, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals.

However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent

filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.75,000/-

per month. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the

respondent. The learned Family Court vide order dated 23.01.2024 granted

AJAY GOSWAMI
interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 60,000/- per month in favour of the
2024.04.01 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
 CRR(F)-443-2024 (O & M) 2 2024:PHHC:042751

respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by

filing the present petition.

3. The 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 falls

within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the

Constitution of India.

4. 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:

“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

that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the
woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution
AJAY GOSWAMI
2024.04.01 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
 CRR(F)-443-2024 (O & M) 3 2024:PHHC:042751

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.”
5. Another objective the legislature has sought to achieve by this

provision is to provide maintenance pendente lite to the applicant spouse

during proceedings emerging out of matrimonial disputes so that she/he can

maintain herself/himself, have sufficient funds to pursue the litigation, and not

suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse.

6. 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 life of reasonable

comfort.

7. 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

AJAY GOSWAMI
2024.04.01 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
 CRR(F)-443-2024 (O & M) 4 2024:PHHC:042751

(2021) 2 SCC 324, laid down the criteria for determining quantum of

maintenance and issued the following directions:

"III Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance

(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.
82. The 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.
83. In 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
AJAY GOSWAMI
2024.04.01 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
 CRR(F)-443-2024 (O & M) 5 2024:PHHC:042751

upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for
maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
84. On 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.
85. The 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
AJAY GOSWAMI
2024.04.01 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
 CRR(F)-443-2024 (O & M) 6 2024:PHHC:042751

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.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to
maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar
lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical
attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the
income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct
sources are not disclosed.
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The 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
VI Final Directions
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
AJAY GOSWAMI
2024.04.01 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
 CRR(F)-443-2024 (O & M) 7 2024:PHHC:042751

directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India:
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
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:
(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
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.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
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.

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.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded

AJAY GOSWAMI
2024.04.01 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
 CRR(F)-443-2024 (O & M) 8 2024:PHHC:042751

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.
(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance
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."

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after

perusing the record with his able assistance, 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. It is evident that the learned Court below has passed

the impugned order in a perfunctory manner, without appreciating the facts of

the case. The interim maintenance awarded is on the higher side and the

learned Court below has failed to consider the deductions of different sums in

the income of the petitioner. A careful and just balance needs to be drawn,

keeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and the high cost of living

corresponding to the reasonable needs of the respondent.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned

order is modified to the extent that amount of Rs.60,000/- per month awarded

to the respondent as interim maintenance is reduced to Rs.30,000/- per month.

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

April 01, 2024 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

AJAY GOSWAMI
2024.04.01 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment