Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 6 April, 2026
CRR(F)-279-2021 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(227) CRR(F) No. 279 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.4.2026
Tulsi Ram ......Petitioner
Versus
Prem Lata .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Vijaraniya, Advocate for
Mr. V.P.Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 19.7.2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition till December 2020, and from January 2021 onwards, Rs. 5,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent. Furthermore, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded to the respondent as litigation expenses. Moreover, amount of maintenance was ordered to be set off/adjusted with any other maintenance allowance received by the respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 12.12.2000, as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock a son was born, who GURPREET SINGH 2026.04.08 09:21 is now aged about 10 years and has been residing under the care and custody I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR(F)-279-2021 (O&M) -2- of the petitioner. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Family Court vide order dated 19.7.2021 granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition till December 2020, and from January 2021 onwards, Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife along with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. Moreover, amount of maintenance was ordered to be set off/adjusted with any other maintenance allowance received by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala, has allowed the maintenance to the respondent on a very higher side. The petitioner has the liability towards his son, who is suffering from mental ailment and the petitioner has been spending Rs. 8,000/- per month towards his medical and other expenses, and is also having monthly expenditure of Rs. 6,000/- towards rent and other expenses, which fact has been overlooked by the learned Family Court. It is further submitted that the respondent has intentionally deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause. In fact, a panchayat was also convened where the respondent admitted that she wanted to live separately from the petitioner. Subsequently, a compromise was effected between the parties on 04.5.2013, whereby the respondent received an amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs from the petitioner as permanent alimony, and she gave an undertaking that she would not claim any maintenance from the petitioner, and that the custody of the minor son was given to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed GURPREET SINGH 2026.04.08 09:21 a divorce petition against the respondent on the ground of cruelty. Vide an I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR(F)-279-2021 (O&M) -3- ex parte judgment and decree dated 21.2.2014, the marriage of the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultry. It is submitted that the said decree of divorce was never challenged by the respondent. It is submitted that after a long span of time, the respondent has filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. levelling general and vague allegations and by concealing the fact with regard to dissolution of her earlier marriage with the petitioner. However, the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order, has failed to consider the abovesaid facts. It is also submitted that the respondent is well qualified and is capable of maintaining herself. It is also submitted that the respondent left the company of the petitioner without any just cause. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court in the impugned order, has wrongly assessed the income of the petitioner to be 24,000/- per month. Thus, in view of these submissions, the respondent is not entitled for any further maintenance amount from the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the present petition.
5. The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse and children are not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage or any other unfortunate circumstance. 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 GURPREET SINGH 2026.04.08 09:21 within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR(F)-279-2021 (O&M) -4- the Constitution of India.
6. 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."
7. 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 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."
8. 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 GURPREET SINGH 2026.04.08 09:21 that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The adequacy of the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR(F)-279-2021 (O&M) -5- maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse and children being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort.
9. 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 (2021) 2 SCC 324, laid down the criteria for determining quantum of maintenance and issued the following directions:
"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 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 / GURPREET SINGH 2026.04.08 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR(F)-279-2021 (O&M) -6-
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
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 order 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."
10. A 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 at the time of deciding the application for maintenance. All the pleas raised herein had already been addressed by the learned Family Court in the impugned order. The learned Family Court in the impugned order has recorded that though the petitioner has obtained ex-parte decree of divorce from the respondent. However, he neither raised any averment that after divorce the respondent had remarried, nor did he lead any evidence to the said regard. The learned Family Court has also observed that the petitioner is in a government job and has been working as a peon. Moreover, the pay slip of the petitioner for the month of June 2021-22 shows that he had been getting a gross salary of Rs. 42,015/- per month and after GURPREET SINGH 2026.04.08 09:21 accounting the compulsory deductions, his monthly salary comes to I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR(F)-279-2021 (O&M) -7- Rs. 24,000/-. Though, the petitioner had averred that the respondent wife is a teacher and has been earning Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month, however, no cogent evidence had been advanced to substantiate the claim regarding the income of the wife. It is settled law that a wife cannot be denied maintenance solely on the ground that she is qualified. With regard to the claim of the petitioner that he had paid Rs. 3.00 lacs as lumpsum maintenance was conclusively established before the learned Family Court, however, the averment of the petitioner that the respondent had waived off her right to any further maintenance, was not established. Therefore, after taking into account all the above aspects, the liability of the petitioner towards his son, and his salary, Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition till December 2020 and thereafter from January 2021 onwards, the quantum of maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife was fixed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
April 06th, 2026
Gurpreet Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
GURPREET SINGH
2026.04.08 09:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh