High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR(F)/771/2024dismissed

Pachma Behl And ANR. v. Rahul Behl

2024-07-30Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar8 pages

!"#$%$ &'( )

#*+ *, &" & *- ))) $ $ &-% .%) */,*, )))%0 &"&

' 12 )3 3

4)2

! "# "$ %"%&

(! *! *

* * !

-.$ / 0* * 12

4 5"""67

3 % %

8 ", "% %"

:! ;

3 %

! !

* * ;

4 %,"""67

< *! "# "$ %"%&

4 5"""67

3 7

$ < !

inter alia,

4 5"""67

3 %7 ! !

;

(! =

4 &5"""67

& !

! !6 ! ! '

! !

(

?! !

* * !

* *

! ! >!

,/$2

$- *! @

# )!

7(! + 91

, ; ! (! 8 A

"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

!6 !

! 6

6 ! !

! !6

*7 +

!"## $$$

* *

! >!

%&'

( !

"##)$"$

; ! (!

"8. I have perused the compromise (Ex.C1) today produced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It nowhere reflects that respondent No. 3 has accepted the maintenance amount in full and final settlement on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 also. The receipt attached with Exhibit CI reflects that a lump+sum amount of Rs. 70,000/+ was accepted by respondent No. 3 as her past as well as future maintenance at the time of disposal of Hindu Marriage petition. It is a case where respondents No. 1 and 2 were not party in the Hindu Marriage petition. No interim maintenance was allowed to them in that petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that a petition under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed wherein any interim maintenance was fixed for the children. In the absence

5 thereof also, statement of wife Manjit Kaur is of no value that she will maintain and educate the minor children.

9. The question of grant of maintenance of the children is governed by the statutes under the The Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. The plea of the petitioner is falsified from the receipt which forms part of compromise, Ex.CI, which shows that no maintenance was ever accepted by their mother Manjit Kaur on their behalf. The question of making any statement by wife Manjit Kaur against the interest of the children is also not to be taken into account, unless a certificate is issued by a counsel representing the minors that the compromise is for the welfare of the minors. Order 32 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides safeguard to the future interests of the minors.

10. In the absence of abovesaid statutory requirements as well as that respondents No. 1 and 2 are not the party in the Hindu Marriage petition, the statement made by Manjit Kaur (respondent No. 3) has rightly been not taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate while fixing the interim maintenance under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code The present proceedings cannot be quashed for the simple reason that the wife has made a statement in a Hindu Marriage Act case that she would provide education and maintenance to the children. The petitioner is father of respondents No. 1 and 2 and cannot take the benefit from the statement of respondent No. 3 Manjit Kaur and wriggle out of his responsibility to maintain his legitimate children. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 after taking divorce are living separately with their respective spouses and children are living at the mercy of their grand+ maternal parents."

- B !

in extenso,

(! + 91

* %

!"#""$"

! "

+,& -

130. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B +1 to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the

6 following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:

+ (&..' -

131. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:

(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or setoff, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding:

(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;

(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding /01 +2-

132. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.

(- ' 3 -

133. For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B III of the judgment.

134. The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the

facts and circumstances of a case.

4 - - /4

135. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B+IV above.

5 -657- -

136. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C may be applicable. The arder of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI."

! ?!

* + C

;

4 ,"""67

3 % ;

(! =

4 $#-5"67

! !

;

< !

7 !

% 3

9 $" ". %"%& vishnu B ;6 E63 B

E63