Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1335 (PNJ)

Rupinderjit Singh v. Amanpreet Saini

2024-11-14

SUMEET GOEL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.:- Present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rupnagar (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘concerned Family Court’) praying for setting-aside/modification of the said order. Vide the impugned order; the respondents (herein) have been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2-minor daughter) to be paid by the petitioner (herein) from the date of the filing of the application alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the learned Family Court, while determining the quantum of interim maintenance, has not taken into consideration the inability of the petitioner to pay the excessive amount, given his current financial condition. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner-husband is suffering from a severe skin disease namely ‘Psoriasis’ and hence is unable to earn anything. It has been further iterated by learned counsel that the wife (respondent No.1 herein) is gainfully employed and is earning sufficiently so as to maintain herself and the child born out of the wedlock. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has further submitted that the wife (respondent No.1 herein) is in-fact earning more than him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent No.1-wife has purchased property jointly with her mother which shows that she has sufficient source of earning. On these grounds, setting-aside of the impugned order has been prayed for. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned Family Court has rightly allowed the application seeking interim maintenance as the respondent-wife does not have any source of income to maintain herself and her minor daughter. Furthermore, the Family Court has determined the quantum of maintenance based on the calculation of the income of the petitioner; consideration of the expenditure incurred for the education of respondent No.2 (minor daughter) as also taken due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, it has been prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. 5. Thus, it has been prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. 5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr., 2021(2) SCC 324 ; relevant whereof reads as under:- “II Payment of interim Maintenance 1. The proviso to Section 24 of the HMA (inserted vide Act 49 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001), and the third proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 (inserted vide Act 50 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001) provide that the proceedings for interim maintenance, shall as far as possible, be disposed of within 60 days’ from the date of service of notice on the contesting spouse. Despite the statutory provisions granting a time-bound period for disposal of proceedings for interim maintenance, we find that application remain pending for several years in most of the cases. The delays are caused by various factors, such as tremendous docket pressure on the Family Courts, repetitive adjournments sought by parties, enormous time taken for completion of pleadings at the interim stage itself, etc. Pendency of applications for maintenance at the interim stage for several years defeats the very object of the legislation. 2. At present, the issue of interim maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings, where some amount of guess-work or rough estimation takes place, so as to make a prima facie assessment of the amount to be awarded. It’s often seen that both parties submit scanty material, do not disclose the correct details, and suppress vital information, which makes it difficult for the Family Courts to make an objective assessment for grant of interim maintenance. While there is a tendency on the part of the wife to exaggerate her needs, there is a corresponding tendency by the husband to conceal his actual income. 74. It has therefore, become necessary to lay down a procedure to streamline, the proceedings, since a dependant wife, who has no other source of income, has to take recourse to borrowings from her parents/relatives during the interregnum to sustain herself and the minor children, till she begins receiving interim maintenance. 74. It has therefore, become necessary to lay down a procedure to streamline, the proceedings, since a dependant wife, who has no other source of income, has to take recourse to borrowings from her parents/relatives during the interregnum to sustain herself and the minor children, till she begins receiving interim maintenance. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (j) The concerned Family Court /District Court/Magistrate’s Court must make an endeavour to decide the I.A. for Interim Maintenance by a reasoned order, within a period of four to six months at the latest, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before the court. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 132. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court/District Court/Magistrate’s Court, as the case may be, throughout the country; xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 6. Vide the impugned order passed by the Family Court, the aspect of interim maintenance has been decided. It goes without saying that a decision upon the aspect (especially quantum) of interim maintenance, being result of some element of estimation, has to be construed accordingly as the entitlement of the applicant (making a plea for grant of interim maintenance) cannot be based upon exact arithmetical calculations at such stage. The order granting interim maintenance is, indubitably, subject to final adjudication and it is a provisional step subject to final determination to be made on the conclusion of proceedings. In other words, the interim maintenance is only tentative & is subject to fixation of final maintenance. 7. It is undisputed that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and respondent No.2 is the minor daughter of the petitioner, who is living in the care and custody of respondent No.1. The facts of the instant case reflect that vide the impugned order; the respondents have been granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2-minor daughter) from the date of the filing of the petition. The facts of the instant case reflect that vide the impugned order; the respondents have been granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2-minor daughter) from the date of the filing of the petition. The petitioner-husband has brought on record the medical prescription (appended as Annexures P-7 to P-9 with the instant petition) which tend to reflect that the petitioner is suffering from a skin disease but there is no material much less substantial material to indicate that the petitioner-husband is unable to do gainful employment on account of this disease. Furthermore, in the reply furnished by the petitioner-husband before the Family Court, there is no specific averment in this regard. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner-husband is that he is suffering from severe skin related disease which has lead to his incapacity to work/earn is not substantiated for the nonce. 7.1. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-husband (herein) that the petitioner is not liable to maintain the respondent-wife owing to the fact that she possesses sufficient means to maintain herself, is not well-founded in law. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a tool for social justice enacted to ensure that women and children are protected from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution. If the husband/father has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and cannot shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities. In households wherein the women are working and are earning sufficiently to maintain themselves, it does not automatically mean that the husband/father is absolved of his responsibility to provide sustenance for his children. A father has an equal duty to provide for his children and there cannot be a situation wherein it is only the mother who has to bear the burden of expenses for raising and educating the children. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra):- “xxxx xxxx xxxx Where wife is earning some income 90. The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments. 91. In Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 . The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments. 91. In Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 . See also Decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa & Ors., 2016 CriLJ 4794 this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. Vipul Lakhanpal v. Smt Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC Online HP 1252. 92. In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715 the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. 93. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale 2020 SCC Online Bom 694 while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance. 94. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. 95. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. 95. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 cited the judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. xxxx xxxx xxxx” Thus, even if the wife is working; it does not mean that the husband will be completely absolved from taking responsibility of his wife. The husband is legally bound to maintain his wife according to his status and lifestyle. 7.2. There is no clinching material/evidence available, at this stage, which may indicate that the wife has such substantial means of earning that she is able to buy property and hence does not deserve to be granted any interim maintenance. The upbringing of the child, born out from the wedlock between the parties, is the joint responsibility of both the father and the mother. Even if the mother is having some income, the father does not ipso facto get absolved from contributing towards the proper upbringing and maintenance expense of the child on this account. The welfare of the child, requires the joint support of both the parents, ensuring that all necessary expenses are met for the holistic development of the child. Therefore, the financial contribution of the father alongwith mother remains essential, as it is integral to the child’s stable and balanced growth. Hence, at this juncture, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition with regard to factual aspect, are matter of trial and no comment on the same can be made at this stage. The same can be ascertained only after adducing evidence by the parties. It is also apparent from the record that the order under challenge is only interim in nature and not a final decision of the maintenance petition. The amount of maintenance awarded is always subject to the adjustment which will depend on the final outcome of the maintenance petition filed by the respondent/wife. 8. It is also apparent from the record that the order under challenge is only interim in nature and not a final decision of the maintenance petition. The amount of maintenance awarded is always subject to the adjustment which will depend on the final outcome of the maintenance petition filed by the respondent/wife. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs.12,000/- per month, which has been directed to be paid by the petitioner (herein) to the respondents, vide the impugned order cannot be said to be on the higher side and is rather just and appropriate in the facts/circumstances of the case. 9. In view of above, the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. 10. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the Family Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with them. 11. As the main petition has been decided on merits, no order is required to be passed in the accompanying application, if any.