IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19214-2016
Date of decision: 03.11.2017
Rajesh Goyal …Petitioner
Versus
Dimple …Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Mahir Sood, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Dimple, respondent in person.
********
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C
seeking to challenge orders dated 29.01.2016 (Annexure P-10) whereby the
petitioner has been directed to make payment of arrears of interim
maintenance @ of Rs. 20,000/- per month in terms of order dated 30.10.2014
and also to challenge order dated 25.03.2016 (Annexure P-12) passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda whereby the revision petition filed
against the said order has been dismissed.
2. To understand the controversy involved herein, it would be
necessary to delineate upon the facts of the case. The petitioner Rajesh
Goyal married the respondent Dimple Goyal as per Hindu rites and
ceremonies on 19.10.2012. On account of matrimonial dispute between the
parties, bitter litigation commenced. The respondent got an FIR No. 54 dated
25.09.2013 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal
1 of 9
09-11-2017 01:05:22 :::
2
CRM-M-19214-2016
Code at Police Station Women Cell, District Bathinda. She also filed a
petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, which petition was decreed
ex-parte by judgment and decree dated 04.02.2015. The respondent also
instituted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of interim
maintenance on 02.11.2013. Since the petitioner did not appear, he was
proceeded ex-parte by an order dated 17.12.2013 which order was
challenged and the ex-parte proceedings were set aside by an order dated
14.08.2014. Thereafter, the JMIC, seized of the matter, directed the
petitioner to make a payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim
maintenance from the date of application by an order dated 30.10.2014. This
order, directing payment of interim maintenance, was challenged by the
petitioner by filing a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge
which revision was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 11.03.2015,
since the main application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had been allowed by
the JMIC on 30.01.2015. As the order dated 30.01.2015 was an ex-parte
order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the
respondent from the date of application as also litigation expenses to the tune
of Rs. 15,000/-, the same was challenged in a Revision Petition No. 14 dated
24.03.2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The Additional
Sessions Judge by an order dated 24.11.2015 set-aside the impugned order
and directed the parties to appear before the trial Court giving one effective
opportunity to the petitioner (respondent revisionist) to contest the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Since there was non-compliance of
the order dated 30.10.2014, which had allowed interim maintenance @ of
Rs. 20,000/- per month, to be paid to the complainant wife, an application
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 09-11-2017 01:05:24 :::
3
CRM-M-19214-2016
dated 15.12.2015 under Section 128 Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears of
maintenance was preferred. Reply was filed to the said application in which
inter alia a specific plea had been taken that the respondent wife would not
be entitled to maintenance as she had already received a sum of Rs. 10 Lakh
before the Supreme Court. This application was contested and by an order
dated 29.01.2016, a direction was issued to pay the arrears of maintenance.
This order was again challenged by the petitioner; however, the revision
petition was dismissed on 25.03.2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Bathinda (Annexure P-12). Aggrieved against the order directing the
petitioner to pay arrears of interim maintenance @ of Rs. 20,000/- per
month, and dismissal of the revision petition, the instant petition has been
filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the respondent
wife is not entitled to grant of any interim maintenance as has been assessed
by the JMIC, Bathinda. It is contended that the petitioner herein has already
paid a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs to the respondent under the orders of the
Supreme Court, which amount has been withdrawn by her. It is argued that
without taking into consideration the facts of the case or assessing the
income of the petitioner, who is not holding a job, interim maintenance
should not have been assessed at Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is also submitted
that the marriage subsisted for a very short period and it is the respondent
herself who left the matrimonial home and obtained a decree of divorce and,
therefore, having left the matrimonial home herself, she would not be
entitled to any maintenance. It is also argued that maintenance is to be
awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C in a given situation, if the complainant is
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 09-11-2017 01:05:24 :::
4
CRM-M-19214-2016
not in a position to maintain herself, and after having received a sum of
Rs. 10 Lakhs, it could not be said that she is destitute. It is also argued that
the respondent herein is a qualified teacher and has a job of Rs. 30,000/- per
month, whereas the petitioner is jobless and does not have any landed
property in his name.
4. Per contra, the respondent, who appears in person, argues that
the petitioner herein is liable to pay the interim maintenance as has been
awarded by the JMIC in its order dated 30.10.2014. It is argued that the
petitioner herein is a man of means as would be reflected in the matrimonial
advertisement issued. It is also argued that the petitioner, while giving a
statement in proceedings initiated against him, had submitted that he along
with his brothers were joint in residence and in business. It is argued that the
petitioner herein has a share in a petrol station and, therefore, is a man of
substantial means. The respondent also relies upon an affidavit filed by the
petitioner before the JMIC, Bathinda, in proceedings initiated under Sections
498-A and 406 of the IPC, in which the petitioner himself, in support of his
bail application, has averred that he, being a man of means, will not abscond.
The respondent argues that the sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs, received by her, were
pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4577 – 4578
of 2014 arising out of a judgment and order dated 29.05.2014 passed by this
High Court which had been filed seeking anticipatory bail since there had
been no recovery of gold/dowry articles.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also perused
the pleadings in this case.
4 of 9
09-11-2017 01:05:24 :::
5
CRM-M-19214-2016
6. The short question before this Court is whether the petitioner
herein is liable to pay interim maintenance as assessed by the JMIC,
Bathinda by its order dated 30.10.2014 ?
7. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been
enacted in a form of a beneficial legislation which provides an effective
remedy to protect women, children and parents when they are not in a
position to maintain themselves. The term ‘wife’ also includes a divorced
wife and, therefore, the respondent herein is entitled to seek maintenance, if
it can be established that she is unable to maintain herself. In Chanmuniya
vs. Virender Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another, 2011 (1) SCC 141,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
23. Again, in Vimala v. Veeraswamy [(1991) 2 SCC 375], a
three-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 125 of the
Code of 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose and the
object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. Explaining the
meaning of the word `wife’ the Court held:
“3…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. When an attempt is made
by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife
depicting her as a kept-mistress on the specious plea that
he was already married, the court would insist on strict
proof of the earlier marriage. The term `wife’ in Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, includes a
woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has
obtained a divorce from her husband and has not
remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a
wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the
term `wife’ consistent with the objective… ”
8. The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent has received a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs in terms of the SLP order
and, therefore, cannot claim maintenance, is not sustainable. The amount as
received under the orders of the Supreme Court was in order to secure
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 09-11-2017 01:05:24 :::
6
CRM-M-19214-2016anticipatory bail. In fact, the petitioner herein had applied for grant of
anticipatory bail in proceedings initiated under the FIR registered under
section 406/498A IPC. After bail was rejected by this Court, he appeared
before the Supreme Court and it is only thereafter that the respondent herein
was given a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs.
9. The JMIC, Bathinda has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to be
paid as interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The contention of
the petitioner that the respondent was an educated lady having a Bachelor
Degree, a Degree in Education, Diploma in Tourism was noted and
thereafter it was held that having a good qualification does not mean that she
is capable of maintaining herself. The plea of the petitioner that he didn’t
have a bungalow or plot or was running any petrol pump was not taken into
account while determining the liability of the petitioner to make a payment
of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of application. Undeniably, the
petitioner herein has a moral obligation and responsibility to maintain the
respondent even though she is his divorced wife. The plea that she left her
matrimonial home of her own accord, and thus would not be entitled to
claim maintenance, cannot be taken into account since there were adequate
reasons for her to leave her matrimonial home. The petitioner in his wisdom
did not deem it fit to contest the divorce petition filed alleging cruelty.
10. However, while determining interim maintenance, the Court has
necessarily to arrive at a determination about the earning capacity of the
person from whom it is claimed. It is also true that an exact determination
cannot be made, even then interim maintenance cannot be fixed capriciously.
These proceedings are summary in nature and the matter has to be decided
6 of 9
09-11-2017 01:05:24 :::
7
CRM-M-19214-2016
on the basis of some averments/pleadings/documents supported by the
parties. In the matter of Bharat Hegde vs. Smt. Saroj Hegde, 140 (2007)
DLT 60, a thumb rule was laid out for the Courts to follow where the parties
do not come forward with their exact income. It was held that while
determining interim maintenance/maintenance, the status of the parties,
reasonable needs of the claimant, the independent income and property of
the claimant, the number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain, the
amount of aid that should be given to an applicant-claimant to live in a
similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home, non-applicant’s
liabilities, payment capacity of the non-applicant and the amount awarded
are to be taken into consideration.
11. Recently, a similar matter came up before the Supreme Court In
Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain, Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2017 arising
out of SLP (C) No.7670 of 2014 reported as 2017 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 682. A
matrimonial dispute arose between the parties and the wife filed a divorce
petition along with an application seeking interim maintenance in
proceedings under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The wife
claimed a sum of rupees Rs.4,00,000/- per month and also a sum of
Rs.80,000/- to meet litigation expenses during the pendency of the divorce
petition, on the ground that she did not have any source of income to
maintain herself and that she is dependent upon others for her day to day
needs and requirements. The husband contested the application while
submitting that his wife was well educated and that the family business had
suffered a severe setback. Eventually the High Court fixed interim
maintenance at Rs. 60,000/- per month which was challenged by the
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 09-11-2017 01:05:24 :::
8
CRM-M-19214-2016
husband. The Supreme Court reduced the interim maintenance awarded by
the High Court to Rs. 25,000/- per month while holding as under:
“11. The Court exercises a wide discretion in the matter of
granting alimony pendente lite but the discretion is judicial
and neither arbitrary nor capricious. It is to be guided, on
sound principles of matrimonial law and to be exercised
within the ambit of the provisions of the Act and having
regard to the object of the Act. The Court would not be in a
position to judge the merits of the rival contentions of the
parties when deciding an application for interim alimony and
would not allow its discretion to be fettered by the nature of
the allegations made by them and would not examine the
merits of the case. Section 24 of the HM Act lays down that in
arriving at the quantum of interim maintenance to be paid by
one spouse to another, the Court must have regard to the
appellant’s own income and the income of the respondent.”
12. In the instant case, a perusal of the order dated 30.10.2014 does not
reflect a judicious approach of the Court below while determining the
interim maintenance to be paid. Other than noting contentions, there are no
adequate reasons forthcoming as to what is the basis of determination of
interim maintenance at Rs. 20,000/- per month. The plea taken that the
petitioner had sold his property to pay a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs to the
respondent has also not been taken into consideration. Therefore, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the interim maintenance as assessed is on
the higher side.
13. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that he is not holding a
regular job, does not own any land or property and is residing separately
with his widowed mother. On the contrary, the respondent wife pleads that
he is a man of substantial means, she relies upon an affidavit furnished by
the petitioner himself while seeking bail which states that he has land and
will not abscond, statement given by the petitioner that he is in a joint family
8 of 9
09-11-2017 01:05:24 :::
9
CRM-M-19214-2016
and the matrimonial advertisement saying that he is a businessman, to claim
maintenance. None of these factors can be looked into at the present
moment by this court, as evidence is still being led. However, without there
being any sustainable proof, this Court finds that the interim maintenance
awarded is excessive.
14. In view of above, the instant petition is partly allowed. The
impugned orders dated 30.10.2014 29.01.2016 are modified to the extent
that the interim maintenance payable would be assessed @ Rs. 10,000/- per
month from the date of the application. The appellant-husband is directed to
pay the arrears within eight weeks from today.
15. However, while disposing of this petition, it is made clear that
the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C is to be decided by taking all
parameters into account as discussed above and the JMIC is not to be
influenced by the order of this Court determining interim maintenance @
Rs. 10,000/- per month. In case the final maintenance is determined to be
lesser than Rs. 10,000/- per month, excess payment made same shall be
adjusted against future payments.
Let a copy of this order be dispatched to the respondent at her
given address.
November 03, 2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 09-11-2017 01:05:24 :::