Suresh Kumar v. NIDHI GUPTA

Order

24.07.2024 Suresh Kumar Jyoti Jyoti Suresh Kumar M) CRR-F-48-2024(O&M) (s) …..Petitioner(s) (s) …..Respondent(s) M) CRR-F-1354-2023(O&M) (s) …..Petitioner(s) (s) …..Respondent(s) Vs. *** Vs. CORAM: Present:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Amarbir S. Shergill, Adv for the petitioner/husband , Advocate and (in CRR-F-48-2024). Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate (in CRR-F-1354-2023). for the petitioner/wife (in ta, J. Nidhi Gupta, J ***** CRM-1494-202 2024 IN CRR-F-48-2024 This is an application unde under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonatio nation of delay of 62 days in filing th g the petition. After going through the on, the contents of the application, which is supp supported by affidavit of the appl applicant/petitioner/husband, the SUNENA 2024.07.30 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 9 same is allowe lowed subject to all just exceptions ions and delay of 62 days in filing the petition is n is condoned. 2024 CRR-F-48-2024 Challenge in the present p nt petition filed by the husband is to the order d er dated 10.08.2023 passed by learn ge, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, urt, Camp Court, Sunam, whereby eby in an application filed by the respondent/w t/wife under Section 125 Cr. Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance ce, the petitioner/husband has bee - been directed to pay Rs.11,000/- per month fro from the date of application along long with Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. CRR-F-1354-20 2023 Challenge in the present p nt petition filed by the wife is to the order dat dated 10.08.2023 passed by learn ge, arned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, urt, Camp Court, Sunam, whereby eby in an application filed by the petition/wife ife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for g , for grant of interim maintenance, the responden ndent/husband has been directed t ted to pay Rs.11,000/- per month from the date ate of application along with Rs.10, .10,000/- as litigation expenses. Both these petitions are are being disposed of by this common orde order as the impugned order, fac acts, and parties, in both the petitions are s re same.

#2. For the sake of conveni venience, the parties are being referred to an o and the facts are being taken fro from CRR-F-48-2024 filed by the husband. SUNENA 2024.07.30 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

#3. Learned counsel for the the petitioner/husband inter alia 9 submits that t hat the respondent/wife is a qualif ualified B.Ed. JBT and LLB degree holder. Wher hereas the petitioner is a retired tired teacher earning pension of merely Rs.39,9 .39,902/- per month. Moreover, the the petitioner had paid for spent a huge amoun ount for the studies of the respon spondent. As such, the impugned maintenance ce is on the higher side and deser eserves to be set aside. It is also prayed that t at the parties are willing to sett settle the matter amicably and therefore, the , the matter be referred to the Medi ediation.

#4. Learned counsel for the r he respondent/wife opposes the prayer made o de on behalf of the petitioner and and submits that the respondent has only just just concluded her LLB studies an e. s and has no source of income. Learned couns ounsel refers to the Affidavit of Inco Income, Assets and Liabilities filed by the respon spondent (Annexure P2) wherein in she has stated that she is not working and i nd is a housewife and not paying ying any income tax; she has no movable or im r immovable property. She is resid On esiding at her parental house. On the other han hand, the petitioner owns movable able and immovable property and is working as a as a Headmaster in a school and ge - d getting a salary of Rs.1,07,950/- per month. In h. In this regard, learned counsel sel refers to the Affidavit of the petitioner (An (Annexure P3), as per which he d., he too is a qualified MA, B.Ed., getting a sala salary of Rs.1,07,950/- per month onth; and is residing in his own house.

#6. No other argument is made

ade on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned couns ounsel for the parties and perused the case file in le in great detail. SUNENA 2024.07.30 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

#7. Brief facts of the case se are that the petitioner was 9 married to the o the respondent on 22.10.1999. T . Two children were born out of their wedlock lock. The son is in the custody of th r is of the respondent and daughter is with the petit petitioner. However, subsequently, rd, ntly, due to matrimonial discord, the parties sta s started living separately from Apr April 2018 onwards. The present petition unde nder Section 125 Cr.P.C. was f as filed by the respondent on

21.04.2022.

#8. It is not denied by learne rned counsel for the respondent that the petit petitioner has retired from his job s job on 31.10.2023 and is now getting pensio ension of only Rs.39,902/- per m er month. As evident from the Affidavit of th f the petitioner (Annexure P3), the the petitioner is also bearing all the education tion expenses of his daughter and and is spending around Rs.2 lakh per annum o m on her education. The petition tioner is also paying house loan installment o t of Rs.42,000/- per month. Thu Thus, the petitioner has some additional resp responsibilities, which is not the ca e case with the respondent/wife.

#9. However, notwithstanding ding the above, there can be no disputing or e or escaping the fact that in view of of the admitted relationship, the petitioner has has the moral and legal obligation t ion to maintain his wife and minor child. It is adm admitted that the petitioner is able ble-bodied and healthy.

#10. 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 SUNENA 2024.07.30 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 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 9 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 asse assertions made by either of the parties.

#11. Moreover, 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 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…” SUNENA 2024.07.30 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

#12. Again, a three-Judge Ben Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme 9 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...”

#13. 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. More oreover, as noticed above, in view view of the admitted relationship between the the parties, the petitioner cannot nnot escape his responsibility to maintain the r he respondents.

#14. However, it is also an adm admitted fact in the present case that the respo espondent-wife is also highly qualifi alified and is able-bodied. As such there is no re o reason as to why she is not work working. It is my considered view that it is first a rst and foremost duty of the respon elf. pondent/wife to maintain herself. Especially keep keeping in mind, the fact that she is he is able-bodied and qualified.

#15. Thus, as regards the pray prayer of the respondent/wife to enhance the the maintenance, reference may b ay be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supre upreme Court in case of “Bhushan han Kumar Meen v. MansiMeen Allas Harpree reet Kaur (SC)” : Law Finder Doc Doc Id # 547724. In the said case too, the wife wife albeit well qualified, was n s not working. Accordingly, the SUNENA 2024.07.30 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 9 Hon’ble Supr upreme Court had held that “ at “However, having regard to qualifications t ons that Wife possesses, there is no is no reason why she ought not to be in a positio sition to also maintain herself in fu in future…”, and had accordingly reduced the a he amount of interim maintenanc ance granted to the respondent wife.

#16. Reference may also be be made to judgment of the Karnataka H High Court in “Smt. hilpashree J. M. & Others Shilp Vs. Gurumanj anjunatha A.S. & Others”, 2023 SC 3 SCC OnLine Kar 36, Law Finder Doc ID # 2260 260157, wherein it has been held as ld as under:- “8. The records also disclosed tha d that before marriage petitioner No.1 w o.1 was working as is evident from from her cross examination. Her cross e oss examination also reveals that sh at she was residing along with her other. It is also evident from her ad er admission that, even after her deserti sertion she continued to stay in the n the rented house along with her other itself and the allegation doe does establish that she was not interes terested to stay with respondent Nos t Nos. 2 to 4. It is an admitted fact that a at at the instance of the present ent petitioner No. 1, a separate se was taken on rent and now the the petitioners i.e., wife and child are res e residing therein along with her mo r mother, but she was reluctant to stay w ay with her mother-in-law and u nd unmarried sister-in-law. It is an adm admitted fact that respondent ent No. 1- husband is running provisi ovision stores. Further, he is having r ing responsibility of taking care of his mo mother and unmarried sister. Adm . 1 . Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was w as working prior to her marriage age and it is asserted that after marria arriage she resigned the said job. B b. But, there is no explanation as to why why she is incapable of working no g now. She is not supposed to sit idle an le and seek entire maintenance from from her husband and she is also legally gally bound to make some efforts to rts to meet her livelihood and she can see n seek only supportive maintenance ance from her husband". SUNENA 2024.07.30 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 9 d) (Emphasis supplied)

#17. In similar circumstances, th the High Court of Delhi in “Anju & Anr. Vs. Rin . Rinku Dahiya” Law Finder Doc ID # ID # 2349279, has held as under:- “11. We observe that in the pr e present case, where both the spouses are equally qualified and and are earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted t ted to the wife under Section 24 of the Act. The object of Section 24 n 24 of the Act is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedi ceedings under HMA either party should not be handicapped and su nd suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of paucity ucity of source of income. The provision for interim/pendent lite t lite maintenance has been made only to help either spouse to e to sail through the litigation expenses and also to ensure ure that they are able to live comfortably. The proceedings un s under Section 24 of the Act are not intended to equalize the inco income of both the spouses or to give an interim maintenance nce which is commensurate to maintain a similar life style as th as the other spouse as has been observed by this Court in the case FC) case of K.N. V. R.G MAT. APP.(FC) 93/2018 decided on 12.02.2019

019.”

#18. As such, no ground is mad made out to enhance the interim maintenance o ce of ₹11,000/- per month granted ted to the respondent.

#19. Learned counsel for the p he petitioner and respondent are unable to disp dispute the above said factual and l nd legal position.

#20. Accordingly, keeping in vie view the above discussion, I find no ground is m is made out that calls for interfere As ference in the impugned order. As such, both the the present petitions are dismissed issed. SUNENA 2024.07.30 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

#21. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 9

24.07.2024 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether Whether her speaking/reasoned her reportable Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2024.07.30 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document