Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 13 March, 2026
1
CRR(F)-1566-2025 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116-1
CRR(F)-1566-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.03.2026
ANNU SHARMA AND ANOTHER
PETITIONERS
VERSUS
MANISH RAJOTIA
RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate
for the petitioners.
***
Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.
1. Order dated 24.08.2022 of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak, awarding maintenance to the tune ₹18,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and ₹25,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 from the date of filing of the application along with litigation expenses of ₹11,000/- has been assailed in the present petition. Prayer in the petition is for enhancement of maintenance to the tune of ₹1,00,000/- per month along with litigation expenses of ₹55,000/-.
2. For clarity and better appreciation, the parties shall be referred as husband, wife and child.
3. The wife and the minor daughter filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., averring that marriage of the husband and the wife was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 19.11.2015 at Rohtak. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 28.10.2016. Despite sufficient expenditure incurred in the marriage by parents of the wife and dowry articles given, the husband and his family members were not satisfied. Even before marriage, demands for i10 Car, electronic goods, furniture were raised and fixed deposit of ₹6,95,000/- was given to the husband and his mother. The wife was treated with cruelty, forced to consume liquor, abused in the HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.03.17 15:08 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRR(F)-1566-2025 (O&M) presence of relatives and taunted for bringing inferior quality dowry articles. Demand of ₹10,00,000/- was raised by the husband for purchase of Verna Car. His mother and sisters used abusive, unparliamentary language for the wife and instigated him against her. Repeated demands for dowry and car were raised and when the wife expressed her inability to satisfy the demands, she was kept without meals. The husband consumed alcohol on daily basis and harassed the wife on instigation of his mother and the sisters. When the husband and his family members learnt that she was carrying a female child, she was pressurized and threatened to get an abortion. She was forced to consume medicine for abortion and when she refused, she was beaten and thrown out of matrimonial home. When her brother came to fetch her, he was abused and not allowed to enter the house. While she was leaving, she was threatened by the husband and his family members not to return until their demands were fulfilled and the pregnancy was aborted. All expenses of delivery of the child were borne by her parents. Panchayats were convened but to no avail. The wife was pressurized to agree for a divorce or to pay ₹10,00,000/-. Several efforts were made for reconciliation but the husband and his family members remained adamant in their demands and threatened to implicate the wife and her parents in false cases. Dowry articles given at the time of marriage were in possession of the husband and his family members who refused to return the same.
The wife further pleaded that the husband was able bodied, rich and was leading a luxurious life. He worked as a Chief Manager (Priority Sales), Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., New Delhi earning ₹15,00,000/- per annum. He also had liaisons with real estate companies at Gurugram and earned handsome commissions through property deals. He owned Mahindra Scorpio S10 car and immovable properties at Bahadurgarh, Gurugram and HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.03.17 15:08 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CRR(F)-1566-2025 (O&M) village Siwana, District Jhajjar. He had several bank accounts with good bank balance, investments, FDRs and his monthly income from all sources was more than ₹2,00,000/- per month. He did not give a single penny as maintenance to the wife and the child. He had no other liability and his mother was a pensioner. The wife had no movable or immovable property in her name and was working as a teacher at Ganga Institute of Architecture, Village Kablana, District Jhajjar earning ₹30,000/- per month. The child was a Nursery Class student and her tuition fee was ₹16,800/- per month. The wife incurred additional ₹7,000/- to ₹8,000/- per month on the child for her educational expenses, besides, an amount of ₹30,470/- per month as LIC premium and ₹24,000/- per annum on SBI Mutual Fund investment and Sukanya Samridhi Yojna in the name of the child was also incurred by the wife. Maintenance allowance of ₹1,00,000/- per month along with ₹55,000/- as litigation expenses was claimed.
4. The husband opposed the petition. Written statement was filed raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and estoppel etc. It was stated that the wife lived with the husband for only four months after the marriage and left the matrimonial house on 09.04.2016. Since then, she was living separately. She was serving in Sat Priya Institute of Architecture Design at Rohtak. All allegations regarding demand of dowry, mental, physical harassment, cruelty, taunts etc. were denied. Sisters of the husband were residing separately and never interfered in their matrimonial life. The wife pressurized the husband to live separately from his family members and left the house of the husband on 09.04.2016 of her own accord, along with her brother Amit and her niece as she had to appear in an examination and for delivery of her sister-in-law. The husband was never informed of birth of the child. Panchayats were convened but the dispute could not settle. Rather, the HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.03.17 15:08 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 CRR(F)-1566-2025 (O&M) husband and his family members were threatened with dire consequences. The wife refused to return to the matrimonial home and also refused to let the husband meet their newly born child. She pressurized him to leave his mother and family members and shift to Rohtak. Entire articles and jewellery were in her possession. The wife and her family members were continuously threatening him. It was admitted that the husband was working in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., New Delhi earning salary of ₹50,000/- per month. The wife was using a Tata Nexon car and had movable and immovable properties in her name. She earned sufficient amount to maintain herself and the minor child.
5. Vide order dated 24.08.2022, application for interim maintenance for the wife and minor child was allowed and the husband was directed to pay interim maintenance to the tune of ₹18,000/- per month to the wife and ₹25,000/- per month to the minor child from the date of filing the application along with litigation expenses ₹11,000/-.
6. The wife examined herself as PW1 and official witnesses as PW2 to PW4. Numerous documents were brought on record. The husband examined Sunil, Head Clerk, Ganga Institute of Architecture and Town Planning Kabnala, District Jhajjar as RW1 and himself stepped into the witness box as RW2. He brought on record documents Ex.R1 to R8.
7. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak heard respective submissions, examined the evidence regarding income, properties of both the husband and the wife, the disparity in income and directed the husband to pay maintenance of ₹18,000/- to the wife and ₹25,000/- to the child from the date of filing the petition along with litigation expenses of ₹11,000/- per month. Aggrieved, the wife and the minor child have filed the present revision petition.
HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.03.17 15:08 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 CRR(F)-1566-2025 (O&M)
8. Learned counsel for the wife submits that the award of ₹18,000/- per month to the wife and ₹25,000/- to the child as maintenance allowance deserve to be enhanced in view of the income of the husband, which was ₹22,52,453/- annually. Even learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak noticed that in the income tax return for the year 2025-2026, his annual income was recorded as ₹34,36,663/-. It was argued that the needs and expenses of the minor child were growing. Even though the wife was earning, the husband was still legally and morally bound to maintain her and in this context, learned counsel referred to Varinder Kumar Vs. Preety Bala and Another 2022(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1457. It was urged that maintenance for the wife and child should be determined as per financial status of the husband, the needs of the wife and the child and the standard of living enjoyed by during marriage. In this context, reliance was placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parvin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain 2025 (2) SCC 227 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Purvi Mukesh Gada Vs. Mukesh Popatlal Gada 2025:NCBHC-AS:47605.
11. Undisputedly, the wife is professionally qualified and is working as Assistant Professor at Ganga Institute of Planning and Architecture, Village Kablana, District Jhajjar. Learned Family Court, Rohtak determined her monthly salary at ₹39,600/- per month on the basis of the evidence led. The husband too is professionally qualified, having done B.Tech and a diploma course. He is working as Assistant Vice president in Axis Bank since December, 2022. His income tax return for the year 2025-26 records annual income of ₹34,36,663/-, though the amount includes his bonus, income tax, performance bonus and other benefits. As per salary statement Ex.PX, the gross salary of the husband was ₹2,29,165/- per month and his net salary was ₹1,81,454/- per month. It has also come in evidence that the husband has no HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.03.17 15:08 I agree to specified portions of this document 6 CRR(F)-1566-2025 (O&M) liabilities other than a car loan and housing loan, which he had taken. His mother is not dependent on him as she was herself drawing pension of more than ₹28,000/-. It has been noticed by learned Family Court, Rohtak that only statutory deductions towards income tax and compulsory contributions like GPF etc. were permitted and the EMIs towards car loan and housing loan of the husband could not be considered for determining his net disposable income.
The substantial disparity in the income of the parties has been considered by learned Family Court, Rohtak and despite the income of the wife, she has been awarded supplementary maintenance of ₹18,000/- per month, considering the financial standing of the husband and the standard of living the parties enjoyed when the wife was residing in the matrimonial home. ₹25,000/- per month has been awarded for the child aged 9 years to cater to her educational expenses, expenses on food, clothing, coaching classes, entertainment etc. The award of maintenance to the wife and the child is fairly liberal and in consonance with the proved income of the husband. No further enhancement/modification in the impugned order is called for as learned Family Court, Rohtak has taken into account all relevant facts, reasonable wants of the wife and the child as also the financial resources of the husband. No ground for interference is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE
13.03.2026
HS.CHAUHAN
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN
2026.03.17 15:08
I agree to specified portions of
this document