High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR(F)/530/2024dismissed

Shivdhan v. Manjeet Kaur

2024-04-18Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar10 pages

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

,-'.%- ) +++"!'!'#)"/ 0(+ )1""!2 3/ +++"(4#)%")!

56+,,

,7+6

! " " #

$ & '

( & &

+,- . /& & 01 ( (

2 3"""45

( (

( ( 6 "+ ++3

8 ( (

(

2 *"""45

$ ! " " #

(

2 3"""45

- 9 inter alia, $

$ (

(

)

( (

( 7 ;

70 )

!" $ $ (

$ (

( $

# 7

(

< < ; (i) Whether strict proof of marriage is required to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

(ii) Whether prolonged cohabitation as husband and wife without proof of a valid marriage qualifies for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

$ ; (

(

; ( ( ( *.-1

-+ & = >

& &

(

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

) *) ( ?

70 ) &

? > )

(

"13. Hence, in our view from the evidence which is led if the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which are of summary nature, strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required. Either of the parties aggrieved by the order of maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 can approach the civil court for declaration of status as the order passed under Section 125 does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties."

0 .supra1

( (

(

@ (

#+# =& <

= (

; <

$ $

, %

( ( @ (

+** (

) +*# 0

(

;

(

( & ( 0

+ "- "

%=2

"- "- "

* $

) '

(

:( $

"5 * $

+ ( ?

70 )

+ , + $ !!

! !-!,

? A : $ ( "43. We are thus of the opinion that if the abovementioned monetary relief and compensation can be awarded in cases of live.in relationships under the Act of 2005, they should also be allowed in a proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code It seems to us that the same view is confirmed by Section 26 of the said Act of 2005.

44. We believe that in light of the constant change in social attitudes and values, which have been incorporated into the forward.looking Act of 2005, the same needs to be considered with respect to Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and accordingly, a broad interpretation of the same should be taken. xxx xxx xxx

46. We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term 'wife' to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a pre.condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125."

. / '

$ $ (

( ( ( (

(5? > 70 )

+% # !""* - -)",

? % 6 B ( "15.... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation." ;

pendente lite

in extenso, ( ? > 70 )

0 !

1- (

(

"222 , 3

/ (i) The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

82.

The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non. working wife. Refer to 4 + , #/ 4, # !"") ) ) & & & & !!

!1 !!.

83.

In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801, this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant.wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who

makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

84. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications. % , % !"

! 11.

(ii) A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

5 1!*

85. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. (iii) Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub.section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration: (i) position and status of the parties, (ii)

reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning or from any other source. (iv) Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

(v) The Delhi High Court in

6, 6, - ) #78 !* laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance: "1. Status of the parties.

2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.

3. The independent income and property of the claimant.

4. The number of persons, the non.applicant has to maintain.

5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

6. Non.applicant's liabilities, if any.

7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.

8. Payment capacity of the non.applicant.

9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non.applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.

10. The non.applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

11. The amount awarded under section 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/s 24 of the Act."

(vi) Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable."

= ( ( <

(

% & & C

(

( $

;

(

$ $

( (

# $

:,;

! "# " # vishnu @

4 '4 @