IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
112 CRR-F-1558-2024(O&M)
Date of order: 11.12.2024
Asha Rani…..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Ranjit Singh…..Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Prayer in the present petition is for modification of order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalandhar, whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been granted final maintenance of Rs.8,500/- per month from the date of petition. No litigation expenses were granted as the same had already been awarded at the disposal of application for interim maintenance.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the impugned maintenance is liable to be enhanced as admittedly the respondent/husband is highly qualified being MA and is doing the work of finance, sale of medicine products, shuttering, and sale purchase of properties. Thus, he is earning handsome amount of Rs.1.5 lakh per month from all sources. The respondent also has numerous liquid assets. However, he has concealed the material facts in his Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure P3). On the other hand, the petitioner has no source of income and is living at her parental home. The petitioner is entirely dependent on her parents for her sustenance. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned maintenance be enhanced.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in great detail.
4. Perusal of the record of the case shows that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 10.03.2019. No child was born out of their wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord, the parties are living separately after about one year of marriage i.e. from 27.05.2020. Present petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner on 20.10.2020. Upon notice, the respondent had duly put in appearance before the learned Family Court and had filed reply. However, subsequently he had failed to appear. As such, the respondent was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 15.05.2024 when case was pending for cross- examination of the petitioner and her father.
5. It has come on record that as per the Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent before the learned Family Court (Annexure P3), the qualification of the respondent is M.Sc. IT; and he is doing job in a hardware shop and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Monthly expenses of the respondent are also shown to be Rs.8,000/-. Respondent’s mother expired on 11.06.2021 and he is presently living at the mercy of his friends. The petitioner has however withheld her own Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities and not annexed the same with the present petition.
6. On the basis of oral and documentary pleadings and evidence produced by both the parties, the learned Family Court found that although the respondent was holder of PAN Card however, no Income Tax Return had been filed by him for the years 2018-19 to 2022-2023. This fact was also proven by the deposition of PW3/Jaspal Singh, Tax Assistant from Aaykar Bhawan, Bay No.43 to 48, Sector 2, Panchkula.
7. The learned Family Court also found that although it had been contended by the respondent that he was earning only Rs.8,000/- per month, however, it had been brought on record by the petitioner that the respondent had extended huge loans for amounts of Rs.2.5 lakh, Rs.2,20,000/-, Rs.3,50,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.1,90,000/- to various people for recovery of which he had filed complaints (Ex.P16 to P21). Accordingly, the learned Family Court concluded that with salary of only Rs.8,000/- per month, the respondent could not have extended such huge loans. As such, the learned Family Court had concluded that the respondent had paying capacity, and had accordingly granted the impugned final maintenance of ?8500/- per month.
8. However, it is admitted fact on record that the petitioner is a qualified MA (in Punjabi) and B.Ed. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner is not working despite being able bodied. When questioned as to why the petitioner is not working, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was previously giving tuitions. However, now since she is residing with her parents in the village, she is unable to give any tuitions. When it is pointed out that even the children in villages study and therefore need tuitions, learned counsel submits that people in villages do not have high paying capacity. However, when it is pointed out that the petitioner can always take online tuitions in village also, learned counsel for the petitioner has no reply.
9. In these above facts, reference may be made to judgment of the Karnataka High Court in “Smt. Shilpashree J. M. & Others Vs. Gurumanjunatha A.S. & Others”, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 36, Law Finder Doc ID # 2260157,wherein it has been held as under:-
“8. The records also disclosed that before marriage petitioner No.1 was working as is evident from her cross examination. Her cross examination also reveals that she was residing along with her mother. It is also evident from her admission that, even after her desertion she continued to stay in the rented house along with her mother itself and the allegation does establish that she was not interested to stay with respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is an admitted fact that at the instance of the present petitioner No. 1, a separate house was taken on rent and now the petitioners i.e., wife and child are residing therein along with her mother, but she was reluctant to stay with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law. It is an admitted fact that respondent No. 1- husband is running provision stores. Further, he is having responsibility of taking care of his mother and unmarried sister. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was working prior to her marriage and it is asserted that after marriage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation as to why she is incapable of working now. She is not supposed to sit idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and she is also legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and she can seek only supportive maintenance from her husband”. (Emphasis supplied)
10. Reference may also be made to judgment of High Court of Delhi in “Anju & Anr. Vs. Rinku Dahiya” Law Finder Doc ID # 2349279, wherein it has been held as under:-
“11. the Act. The object of Section during the matrimonial proce 24 of the Act is to ensure that dings under HMA either party should not be handicapped and suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of paucity of source of income. The provision for interim/pendent lite maintenance has been made only to help either spouse to sail through the litigation expenses and also to ensure that they are able to live com- fortably. The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are not intended to equalize the income of both the spouses or to give an interim maintenance which is commensurate to maintain a similar life style as the other spouse as has been observed by this Court in the case of K.N. V. R.G MAT. APP.(FC) 93/2018 decided on 12.02.2019.”(Emphasis supplied)
11. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Bhushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen Alias Harpreet Kaur (SC)”: Law Finder Doc Id # 547724, has held that “However, having regard to qualifications that Wife possesses, there is no reason why she ought not to be in a position to also maintain herself in future…”. Similar view has been taken in case of “Anu Kaul vs. Rajeev Kaul (SC)”: Law Finder Doc Id# 183207.
12. It is my considered view that it is first and foremost duty of the petitioner to maintain herself. The ennoble purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not to spawn idle wives, and to f ist the entire burden upon the hapless husband; but is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. A bare reading of Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself indicates that maintenance is admissible to a wife who is ‘unable to maintain herself’. In the present case, that is not so. 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, held 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…” 13. Again, in “Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat & Another” (1996) 4 SCC 479, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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…”
14. Thus, the clear purpose of the provision is to grant social justice to a destitute woman, child, or infirm parents. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a beneficial social welfare legislation, which cannot be allowed to be made inequitable or be misused to the unfair advantage/disadvantage of either spouse.
15. Accordingly, I find no ground is made out that calls for interference in the impugned order, or to enhance the maintenance already granted to the petitioner. As such, the present petition is dismissed.
16.Pending application(s) if any shall also stand(s) disposed of.
(Nidhi Gupta) Judge
11.12.2024
Sunena