Sri al Judge v. State of Gujarat & 79 & Anr.

Order

13.08.2024 Rajinder Pal S al Singh Ramesh Rani & ani & Others Vs. M) CRR-F-336-2024(O&M) (s) …..Petitioner(s) (s) …..Respondent(s) CORAM: Present:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Mr.Gandhi Lal Aggarwal, A for the petitioner. , Advocate ta, J. Nidhi Gupta, J ***** Challenge in the present p nt petition is to the order dated

08.01.2024 pa 4 passed by the learned Principal Ju

Sri al Judge, Family Court, Camp at Sri Anandpur Sah Sahib, whereby in a proceeding u ng under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/hus /husband has been directed to to pay interim maintenance of Rs.11,000/- per month to the respondent dents (Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No t No.1/wife and Rs.2,000/- each pe o.2 h per month to respondents No.2 to 4/minor d r daughters), from the date of fi of filing the petition, along with Rs.10,000/- as as litigation expenses.

#2. Learned counsel for the pe e petitioner assails the impugned order by subm ubmitting that respondent No.1/w 1/wife harassed and troubled the petitioner me mentally and socially to such an ex n extent that he was constrained to take volunt luntary retirement from his job. As . As such, now he is only getting pension of R f Rs.21,000/- per month. Moreo oreover, the petitioner has the SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document additional res responsibility of his aged and ail d ailing 75-year-old mother as is 5 evident from om her medical record (Annexure xure P1). He is also paying the expenses of th of the children. Respondent No.1 is t is .1 is also gainfully employed. It is submitted tha that as such, the impugned mainte intenance be decreased.

#4. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned cou counsel for the petitioner and perused the ca e case file in great detail.

#5. Perusal of record of the c he case shows that the petitioner was marrie o.1 respondent No.1

26.11.2000. Three daughters/res /respondents No.2 to 4 were born orn out of their wedlock, who are admittedly in y in the care and custody of respond pondent No.1. Due to matrimonial discord, the pa e parties are living separately. Pres 25 Present petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was fi s filed by the respondents on 16 16.09.2019. Vide the impugned order, the re e respondents have been grant ranted interim maintenance of Rs.11,000/- pe per month (Rs.5,000/- per month onth to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.2,000/- eac each per month to respondents No s No.2 to 4/minor daughters).

#6. It is the contention of the the petitioner that he is earning only meager p er pension of Rs.21,000/- per mont onth; and that respondent No.1 is also gainfully e ully employed. Perusal of impugned ned order shows that on the basis of preliminary nary evidence brought on record by d by the parties it has been found by the learned rned Family Court that the mother her of the petitioner is getting old age pension ion of Rs.1,000/- per month. Mor Moreover, as the petitioner has retired from C m CRPF, he can get medical reim reimbursement in respect of any SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document medical expen xpenses of his family members. The . The contention of the petitioner 5 that he is pa s paying for the expenses of the the children, was found to be incorrect. The The income of the petitioner was no as not yet proven on record.

#7. It is by now a settled tled trend that in matters of maintenance ce such as the present one, the the husband tries to depict his income on t n the lower side, whereas the the wife attempts to show an exaggerated income of the husband. Th The truth lies somewhere between. How However, these are all matters ters of evidence. The truth or otherwise of of the allegations and counter- -allegations made by both the parties can on n only be determined upon leadin ading of evidence. As such, it is neither desira sirable nor feasible for this Court urt to interfere at this stage, let alone return a rn a finding in respect of the contr ontrary assertions made by either ties. of the parties.

#8. However, the grant of interim maintenance a is a temporary m measure of social justice to he help the abandoned wife and children to tid tide over the difficult period. It is o t is oft-repeated and no longer res integra that S at Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measur asure of social justice to protect abandoned w d wife, children and parents from n rom vagrancy and destitution. In “Kirtikant D. V . Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat & 79, rat & Another” (1996) 4 SCC 479, the Hon’ble Su le Supreme Court has opined as follo follows: “15. ...While dealing with with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Sect Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to e to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to preven event destitution and vagrancy by SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 5 compelling those who can s can support those who are unable to support themselves bu s but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in s in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, c en, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The p he provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this sp is special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benev enevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a ss, in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation ion…”

#9. Again, a three-Judge Ben Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Vim Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) K.)” (1991) 2 SCC 375, speaking through Justic ws: stice Fatima Beevi, held as follows: “3. Section 125 of the Co e Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a socia social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and dest destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of f of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife...”

#10. Thus, the purpose of Sec Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect abandoned w d wives who are unable to mainta aintain themselves from vagrancy and destitutio ution, to grant social justice to a de a destitute woman, child, or infirm parents. Mor Moreover, in view of the admitte mitted relationship between the parties, the p he petitioner cannot escape his r is responsibility to maintain the . respondents.

#11. Moreover, the Hon’ble S le Supreme Court in “Shamima Farooqui v. v. Shahid Khan” (SC) : Law Fin Finder Doc Id # 661024, has categorically h lly held as follows: – SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 5 “B. Criminal Procedure Cod Code, 1973 Section 125 Grant of maintenance to wife - Plea of hu f husband that he was not doing job and had no means to pay ca y cannot be accepted - These are only bald excuses - Held :- (i) If the husband is h n a is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support hims himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wi is wife. (ii) It is the obligatio ation of the husband to maintain his wife - He cannot be p be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wif e wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of e e of earning.”

#12. Admittedly, the petition itioner is able-bodied. Learned counsel for th r the petitioner is unable to dispu ispute the above said factual and ion. legal position.

#13. Accordingly, I find no grou ground is made out that calls for interference i ce in the impugned order. As s s such, the present petition is dismissed.

#15. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. However, is made de clear that nothing stated hereinabove s ve shall be construed as an expressi ression of opinion on the merits of the matter.

13.08.2024 Sunena Whether Whether her speaking/reasoned her reportable SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Yes/No Yes/No