Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 11 March, 2026
CRM-M-42466-2017 (O&M) 1
CRM-M-36926-2018 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204 CRM-M-42466-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision:11.03.2026
1. CHARANJIT SINGH .....PETITIONER
Versus
PAVNEET SAINI .....RESPONDENT
CRM-M-36926-2018 (O&M)
2. CHARANJIT SINGH .....PETITIONER
Versus
PAVNEET SAINI .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON
Present:- Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner.
(in CRM-M-42466-2017).
Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
(in CRM-M-36926-2018).
Mr. Upender Prasher, Advocate for the respondent.
(in both cases).
****
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.
1. The present order shall dispose of the above noted two petitions being CRM-M-42466-2017 and CRM-M-36926-2018. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from CRM-M-42466-2017.
2. Both the present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the orders PRIYANKA 2026.03.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42466-2017 (O&M) 2 CRM-M-36926-2018 (O&M) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking dismissal of the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was dismissed and the application moved by the respondent seeking permission to pursue the petition in her own capacity after attaining majority was allowed vide order dated 12.06.2017 (Annexure P-2).
3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent initially filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through her mother and natural guardian claiming maintenance from the petitioner alleging him to be her father. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and filed his written statement raising preliminary objections. It was specifically pleaded that there was no valid marriage between the petitioner and the mother of the respondent and that the respondent was not his daughter. It was further contended that the petition did not disclose as to when and how the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the respondent's mother was solemnized.
4. Despite the said objections, the learned Trial Court proceeded with the proceedings and granted interim maintenance to the respondent. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge Amritsar, however, as the stay application in the said revision petition was not being considered, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CRM-M-10118-2011.
5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent attained majority. The petitioner thereafter moved an application (Annexure P-4) seeking dismissal of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the PRIYANKA 2026.03.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42466-2017 (O&M) 3 CRM-M-36926-2018 (O&M) ground that the respondent had already attained majority and was a qualified dentist and therefore not entitled to claim maintenance.
6. Before the said application could be decided, the respondent failed to appear before the Trial Court and consequently the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed in default vide order dated 24.07.2013. The respondent challenged the said order before this Court vide CRM-M- 7388-2015 and the proceedings were restored back to its original status. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application before the Trial Court seeking permission to pursue the proceedings in her own capacity as she had attained majority. The learned Trial Court allowed the said application vide order dated 12.06.2017 (Annexure P-2).
7. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the said order was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and without affording him an opportunity to file objections. It has further been contended that the respondent having attained majority and being professionally qualified is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and therefore the application filed by the petitioner seeking dismissal of the petition ought to have been allowed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the question whether the respondent is the daughter of the petitioner is a matter of evidence and cannot be adjudicated at the preliminary stage. It has further been submitted that once the respondent attained majority she was entitled to pursue the proceedings in her own name.
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner, who is a senior citizen and a PRIYANKA 2026.03.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42466-2017 (O&M) 4 CRM-M-36926-2018 (O&M) retired government official, is ready and willing to pay maintenance to the respondent for the period during which she was a minor, without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the main proceedings.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance.
11. It is not in dispute that the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed when the respondent was a minor and was therefore instituted through her mother as natural guardian. It is equally undisputed that during the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent had attained majority. Once a minor litigant attains majority, the law permits such person to persue the proceedings in his or her own name. The permission granted by the learned Trial Court to the respondent to persue the proceedings in her own capacity is, therefore, procedural in nature and does not determine the substantive rights of the parties.
12. The contention of the petitioner that the application was allowed without issuance of notice is noted. However, the said order merely permits the respondent to pursue the proceedings and does not adjudicate upon the entitlement of the respondent to maintenance.
13. The principal dispute raised by the petitioner relates to the very relationship between the parties. The petitioner has consistently denied the paternity of the respondent and has also disputed the alleged marriage with the respondent's mother. These issues involve disputed questions of fact which can only be determined after appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court.
14. At the same time, it is also evident from the record that the respondent has already attained majority and is stated to be professionally PRIYANKA 2026.03.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42466-2017 (O&M) 5 CRM-M-36926-2018 (O&M) qualified. Ordinarily, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a major child is not entitled to maintenance unless the case falls within the statutory exceptions.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated before this Court that the petitioner is willing to pay maintenance to the respondent for the period during which she remained a minor.
16. In view of the aforesaid statement, and in order to balance the equities between the parties, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay the maintenance amount for the period during which the respondent was a minor, in accordance with the order passed by the Trial Court.
17. However, the question regarding entitlement of the respondent to claim maintenance after attaining majority, as well as the dispute regarding the relationship between the parties, shall be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence led by the parties. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar warranting interference by this Court.
18. Accordingly, the present petitions stands disposed of.
19. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.
20. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases.
(NEERJA K. KALSON)
11.03.2026 JUDGE
pry
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
PRIYANKA
2026.03.24 16:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document