Gurtej Kaur v. NIDHI GUPTA

Order

13.11.2024 Vs. …..Petitioner(s) (s) (s) …..Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr.Sylvester Stephen, Advo for the petitioner. Advocate Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocat for the respondent. ***** ta, J. Nidhi Gupta, J Challenge in the present p nt petition is to the order dated

29.08.2023 pa 3 passed by the learned Principal la, ipal Judge, Family Court, Barnala, whereby in a p n a proceeding under Section 125 C 25 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been directed to pa o pay interim maintenance of Rs.8,0 s.8,000/- per month from the date of filing the ap e application.

Mr. Sylvester Stephen, Ad , Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the the petitioner and files Vakaltnam m ltnama with ‘no objection’ from previous coun counsel who is stated to have joined the AG Office. Fresh vakalatnama o ma on behalf of the petitioner is tak taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the pe e petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner oner is a 74-year-old pensioner w r who is getting pension of only Rs.33,000/- pe per month; out of which he has has been directed to pay interim maintenance o ce of Rs.8,000/- per month. It is su r is is submitted that the petitioner is SUNENA 2024.11.19 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document also suffering ring from mental ailment. In this reg s regard, learned counsel refers to the medical re al record of the petitioner (Annexur exure P7) to substantiate the said averment. It is It is further contended that the res respondent is the sister-in-law of the petitioner ner who had contracted marriage iage with him in connivance with her previous us husbandonly with the intentio ntion to extort money from the petitioner. Ho . However, this fact has not been been considered by the learned Family Court urt while passing the impugned o d order. It is accordingly prayed that the prese resent petition be allowed, and the the impugned order be set aside.

5. 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.

6. It is the admitted case o se of the petitioner that he was married to the the respondent on 17.02.2020. Thi This is evident from the marriage certificate (An (Annexure P5) wherein age of the 69 the petitioner is shown to be 69 years and that that of the respondent is about 55 y 55 years and 2 months. It was the second marria arriage of both the parties. The fir e first wife of the petitioner had expired on 23 n 23.12.2018. The respondent is a is admittedly sister-in-law/Sali of the petitioner ner. It is also admitted by the petit etitioner that the respondent had obtained divor ivorce from her previous husband o nd on 01.02.2020. The contention of the petitio titioner that the respondent had had procured divorce from her previous husb usband only with the intention tion to extort money from the petitioner, is a , is a matter of trial and shall be pr e proved by the petitioner before SUNENA 2024.11.19 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the learned Fa d Family Court. The parties are livin

22. living separately since 27.07.2022. Present petitio tition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. w . was filed on 20.08.2022.

7. As regards the mental hea l health of the petitioner, perusal of his medical dical record (Annexure P7) shows t ws that the same pertains to the year 2022. As As regards the contention of the the petitioner that he is suffering from mental p tal problem, the same is not made rd. ade out from the medical record. As per the di e discharge summary dated 23.07 3.07.2022 “…no history of loss of consciousness, ness, no history of vomiting or or ENT bleed or seizure or incontinence…” ce…”. In fact, “…no significant abno abnormalities...” were seen on the NCCT (Non-Co Contrast Computed Tomography) hy) of head of the petitioner. The rest of the me e medical examination of the petiti etitioner pertains to his abdomen as per which ich also no abnormality is detecte ected. In fact, the petitioner has hemoglobin of 15.2 gm. There is nothing wha whatsoever on record to indicate that the petiti etitioner has any depression, or any any other kind of mental issues.

8. It is by now a settled ttled 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 i ed income of the husband. The tr n e truth usually lies somewhere in between. In In any event, these are all matte atters of evidence. The truth or otherwise of of the allegations and counter- -allegations made by both the parties can o n only be determined upon leadi eading 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. SUNENA 2024.11.19 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

9. Reliance may be placed ced upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supre upreme Court in “Shamima Farooq rooqui v. Shahid Khan” (SC): Law Finder Doc Id c Id # 661024, has categorically held held as follows: – “B. Criminal Procedure Code, ode, 1973 Section 125 Grant of mainte aintenance to wife - Plea of husban sband that he was not doing job and ha d had no means to pay cannot be a be accepted - These are only bald excuse cuses - Held :- (i) If the husband is health a ealthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is he is under the legal obligation to support his wife. (ii) It is the obligation of the h - the husband to maintain his wife - He cannot be permitted to plead lead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constrain straints as long as he is capable of earning.”

10. Even otherwise, the grant s a rant of interim maintenance 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 SUNENA 2024.11.19 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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…”

11. 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...”

12. 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 respondent.

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.

14. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. SUNENA 2024.11.19 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

15. 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.

13.11.2024 Sunena Whether Whether her speaking/reasoned her reportable Yes/No Yes/No (Nidhi Gupta) Judge SUNENA 2024.11.19 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document