High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR(F)/151/2024dismissed

Anu Sharma And Others v. Rajvinder Singh Bedi

2024-12-16Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar9 pages

!"!!# #$#$ % !&$$' ($ )#

!&$$' ($ #$#$ %

!"!!# )# ! "

# #

$%&%'( !+"!($ $, !# -# )#$#$$

!)#$ *

)%"!, !# -# )#$

!)#$#$$ *

) "

. $ ""&'"# !//$)-0# # !0"#$ )#$#$!# 1!$-"$#$ !/-!

#!/"!#$234,-# !5- 0$#1,# -!

#!#!5-"

. )# $$ )#$#$ ! 0 )- !'!$# # $")' &'"# !#

6 )! 01 # /! $#$!/

$ $)!/7'!"$/1#,8'!"$4 $ 9,

:)"# !

4!'!##)#$#$; !6!"!$#! #$

-# -$"$!/ ,96 $!-#<=! /!$"- )#$#$;4!& # 6 . "!$!'0#4# )#$#$;!# )#4! /"$ *

9!#4 $/)#$#$; !640 #-# $4/ 5,4 ! #/1$$'4$# )#$#$;34, "!#$"$!/$ 0#4# )/!# )#$#$-$/!

)#$#$-"!$#! #$ -#!$'!//# "!#$!/!!$/!0/# ,# /!#$!/#'!#9,

:) "# !

#)#$#$; !6# $/,4 $/)#$#$;4! #'!#!1!"##4!"!$#! ''$01# !",# )#$#$ !"# $$)#$#$0!$';

5$' ! "#4 $/# )# !)-$$0!$'; *

5$' #$ 6 >! /-# )#$#$, ## !## )#4!")/1!!$/#4$# 7# $4!1! ! $"/-)/!

$ !/!1 /$) 2 6 - # )$ -

# 6

4 $ -/ # $'$ "!,6 , 9:!#!5 " $ "#0 ,66, 6:. /!#0/4 !$'!#$' /1 ,

:)"# #)#$#$; !601/1$'# !--$!$#-# )#,4 $ #!##0!$'

:) "# . )#$! $' /1?!/$-$,#!$)$/#4 $$##$!//1 #&$$'!1# !$/$#!$)!1$'"!$#! ## )#$#$3 -# ## !## $4 $ # )#$#$4$$' !0 #!5 01 # 0!5 # -!/# $ )!1"# - /! ,

* )#$#$;$!0/##!5 !-# $/!)!1-# $2#!

$ /!!

#$$#$!) $!/# !)1!

#- /$"$#"! ,# "!$#! !"#- ,

:'!##)#$#$; !6 #0 !

/! /-# )#0"$### !## )#4!")/1!!$/#4$# 7# $4!1, 4,# ")!1 4! /!$/#$ )$/,

?#/1,# )#/# $&0 ! /#0!&#@-!

#,7# $4!1$#$0!/!1#$# ")/1-!$"# 0- )$/,

. -"")/1- # )#!))!$# ) $'$$#$!#01)#$#$; # # #$-A"-"B"#$ %$/

$!-#<B%

#= 34, )#$#$ ; $##$!//1 $ # 2!"$ $" . )# /#'#!&$//&0$# ,#!'-! #. !-#, %@B)!"$ # 5,4 $ 4!!0$'0/4## !$/$$#1,

!$' # " # !/# !1 $$' !4 $/, # "# - # )#, !1--/1$'!$ !-#,2)$B#)! $#1--,# )# /# !# !"4!$#?$/!5 -) # ,)#$#$;$45$'!!#!

!## 3$#!'C)$#$!/ >!$' /,8'!""!5$'$ "-!0# ,

:)"#

/,* D-# /--)#$#$; !6$)!$01# ")/1 -)#$#$;. )#$)!1$'"# !4 !# !-" $ "!'!/!1-

:,/!$'/1 ,

:"# /1- $"# "!$#!$ $"/-! $"# ,# $")'&'"#"!10# !$# ?!#"-"!$#! 0 3!$' !/! /-# )!#$!!-#)$'# 4$# # $!0/!$#! ,$##!)$# !## /!#0/4 !

/1'!#"!$#! -9,

## $/$)#$#$ ; !6@#!))!# !#)#$#$;$45$'!!3"".! $3$#!'C)$#$!/>!$' /,8'!",!!$'!0# ,

:)"# # # !,# )# /!$" $!$'

:)"# ,45$'!!!!'$B).1!.!,/!

. 0& #!))0 $'!#$'"!$#! $# # !## )#)$# ##$##$!'! 1!

# --!$/-"!$!' ## !"#$",!&#! !-/0!/! "#0 # 5## !## $)$$#'!#$#!4!)#)$ # # ) . # ! ?$ # # # "!$#! ) $',4 $/0$'!/$## /'$/!#$$##0 $# )$$ #$ $$##)$$#,4 $ $#)$)1!$#! ! $!/&#$ #4", $/!$-$")!#. )$$- #$ 4!

#!!"!#-# $!/&#$ ! )# #)#4", $/!)!#,4 $ !/-!//4$# $#

#$##$!/ 4) - #$ / 6 $- 01 #$ / 6 - # #$##$-@$! # 7'( -# 3=0/)"#$

)!5$'# ' 7#$ !#$"!($,)$!-//4

" # $

9 There is a general tendency on the part of the wife to amplify her needs and the husband to conceal his actual income, making it difficult to

determine the earning capacity of the rival claimants with exactitude. The rival claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities in order for the Court to arrive at quantum of maintenance which is just and fair in terms of principle of equistatus. The quantum of maintenance must be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid occurrence of the two extremes of the maintenance being either paltry or extravagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The adequacy of the maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort.

* A $/!/$'4$# # $-"!$#! !#4 7'0 -# 3=0/)"#$

, )!5$' # ' 7#$ @ !/ #!, /!$ 4 # $#$! - #"$$'?!#"-"!$#! !$# -//4$'$ #$ !

"# $ !

%&'!'#"!

(

#$ " "

""%

& "

&" "

&"""

&""" !

"( ) * '

% + !

(!)'$% ,+ $'$#!

!#- - - -

#) *+,- ,$./0/12%%#./ %

'" "

" !

" "

* " "

#34

" " "

. '

%. % &' # #

" #

!""#!$

( #

" # ) # # ) #

# * #

% &

+',' #

* -

% &

+','

# # .

/ % &

"% &

# " % &

0 "

"% & 1

" %& 1 #

+ % &

2% & 34'

# 0

*" "

# # # #

%& 3 + % & ' %& "!""

() # #

# 6

- 1 " 9

" ""

" (

- : # .

- #

#0 6 '$ % & '

* $ It is evident that both petitioner No.1 and the respondent are well qualified and currently employed. Therefore, petitioner No.1 does not merit any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar Meen vs. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur (2010) 15 SCC 372 and Anu Kaul vs. Rajeev Kaul (2009) 13 SCC 209 and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in X v. Y passed in MAT. APP. (F.C.) 78/2023 decided on 11.10.2023. As far as the children

(petitioners No.2 and 3) are concerned, admittedly, 85% of the school fee is paid by the employer of petitioner No.1.

10.

While the respondent is well qualified, his financial status can be deduced from the fact that he has lost his properties to the bank because of his inability to repay the loans availed by him. However, raising a child in today's economy is an expensive affair and both the parents are required to contribute towards the same. A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandu Sridevi vs. Chandu Sesha Rao in Civil Appeal No.1159 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP No.26395 of 2019) decided on 14.02.2023, made the following observations:

"6. The High Court may be correct in observing that in a case where both the husband and wife are earning, they have a shared responsibility to maintain the children and provide them best education. However, the amount of maintenance for a child, in this regard, has to be fixed keeping in view ground realities. It has been noticed by the High Court that the older son is studying in Sri. Chaitanya College, while the younger son is enrolled at Bhashyam School. That being an admitted fact, it can be reasonably inferred that the expenses dedicated to the education and day-to- day maintenance of both the children are much more than Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The appellant - wife is also, thus, contributing substantially for the maintenance and education of the children. Merely because the appellant - wife has some source of livelihood does not absolve the respondent - husband from his responsibility to maintain and provide a good education for the children..."

The learned Court below has duly considered the material placed before it for determining the quantum of maintenance. A careful and just balance has been drawn, keeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and the high cost of living corresponding to the reasonable needs of petitioners No.2 and 3. As such, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

$'/1,# 0# # !0"#$)#$#$!$"$ $'"$ //!!))/$ !#$,$-!1, !//!/#!$)- #

" "

5 A # )!5$':! E:; A # )#!0/ E:;