Sachin vs Jyoti And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 15912 P&H

CRR(F)-1218-2022                                                             -1-

120         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                              CRR(F)-1218-2022
                                              Date of Decision: 06.12.2022

Sachin                                               ..... Petitioner
                                 Versus

Jyoti and another                                    .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:    Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the

present revision petition impugning the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by

the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Maham Rohtak,

whereby maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month has been awarded to

respondent No.2-minor.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was

married with respondent No.1 on 27.02.2016. After marriage, they were

blessed with a son, who is respondent No.2 herein. Due to some

temperamental differences, matrimonial discord took place between the

husband and wife and thus, the wife left the matrimonial home. Thereafter,

she filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of

maintenance for herself and minor in the sum of Rs.20,000/- per month.

Learned Family Court after hearing both the sides, partly allowed the same,

whereby, maintenance qua the respondent-wife was declined, however, the

same was allowed for minor-respondent No.2 @ Rs.6,000/- per month

alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- vide impugned

order dated 02.09.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has

approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.

1 of 3

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended

that the learned trial Court has fallen in error in drawing wrong conclusion.

He submits that the respondent-wife is in Government service and earning

Rs.58,414/- per month, whereas, the petitioner is earning Rs.55,000/- per

month from his private job. He submits that for maintaining the child, it is

the duty of both the parents, however, learned Family Court has burdened

only the petitioner-father. He submits that the petitioner duly led evidence

regarding his liability of Rs.33,000/- per month for paying EMI of loan out

of his salary of Rs.55,000/- per month. He further submits that the petitioner

had taken a specific plea that if the respondent-wife is unable to maintain

the minor, then he is ready to take the custody of the minor, but the learned

Family Court ignored the same. He submits that the respondent-wife left the

matrimonial home without any sufficient reason, thus, in view of the

provisions of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., she is not entitled for filing petition

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He submits that the view taken by the learned

Family Court of granting maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month is totally

unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus, deserves to be set aside.

Heard.

Admittedly, the relationship between the petitioner and

respondent No.1-wife is not in dispute. After hearing both the sides, the

learned Family Court has declined maintenance qua the respondent-wife,

however, the petition had been partly allowed by directing the petitioner to

pay maintenance to the minor @ Rs.6,000/- per month. The contentions

raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is paying EMI for loan is

not sufficient enough to discharge him from his responsibilities towards his

child. Admittedly, the petitioner is the father of respondent No.2 and by no

2 of 3

stretch of imagination, he could be absolved of his legal and moral

responsibilities towards his family. The petitioner is an able bodied person.

Even if the father is not earning even then he is bound to look after his

child. The life of the child cannot be compromised by the technicalities

pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments. The

provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are for preventing destitution and

vagrancy. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of

judgments, the husband is legally and morally responsible to look after his

wife and child. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Rajnesh Vs. Neha, 2021(2) SCC 324, the living expenses of the child would

include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses etc.

Admittedly, the petitioner is earning Rs.55,000/- per month. Keeping in

view the facts and circumstance of the case and the income of the petitioner,

the learned Family Court has granted the maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per

month to respondent No.2-minor, which in any case cannot be said to be on

higher side. In the overall facts and circumstances, this Court finds no

infirmity in the order passed by the learned Family Court, thus, the petition

being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

                                                (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
06.12.2022                                          JUDGE
sharmila            Whether Speaking/Reasoned   :     Yes/No
                    Whether Reportable          :     Yes/Nos




                                 3 of 3