Chamanjeet @ Chamandeep Singh vs Amarjeet Kaur And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 11993 P&H

CRR(F)-338-2020                                                         -1-

114
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH


                                CRR(F)-338-2020
                                Date of Decision: September 22, 2022

Chamanjeet @ Chamandeep Singh
                                                          .....Petitioner
                 Versus
Amarjeet Kaur and another
                                                          ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:    Mr.Lalit K.Gupta, Advocate
            for the petitioner.
                   ........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL)

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning order dated

10.01.2013, passed by learned District Judge (Family Court), Faridabad,

whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and order dated 04.07.2013,

whereby the maintenance petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the

respondent-wife and the minor has been allowed by awarding them

maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and @ Rs.1,000/- per

month to the minor.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner was married with respondent No.1 on 13.03.2009. Thereafter,

due to temperamental differences, the matrimonial discord took place and

the respondent-wife filed an FIR No.56, dated 27.10.2012 under Sections

323, 342, 379 and 307 IPC. She also filed a petition under Section 125

Cr.P.C. praying for grant of maintenance. He has submitted that the valid

service was never effected upon the petitioner and thus, he remained totally

unaware of the proceedings pending in the petition filed under Section 125

1 of 4

Cr.P.C. and despite that learned Family Court proceeded ex parte against the

petitioner. He has submitted that the proceedings in the maintenance

petition commenced without serving and hearing the petitioner and ex parte

judgment dated 04.07.2013 was passed by the learned District Judge without

affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits

that subsequent to the passing of the order by the learned Family Court,

respondent No.1 on 11.10.2015 entered into a compromise with the

petitioner and both of them started living happily as husband and wife. He

has submitted that the compromise arrived at between both of them has also

been placed on record. He has further submitted that again some

matrimonial dispute took place between both the husband and the wife,

however, the same could be resolved with the intervention of the

respectables and the respondent-wife gave an affidavit dated 21.09.2016. He

has submitted that despite all these, the respondent-wife invoked the ex

parte order dated 04.07.2013 and filed an execution petition before the

learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Faridabad. He submits

that the petitioner condoned the past twice and both the husband and wife

started residing together, however, the respondent-wife intentionally filed

the execution petition only to harass the petitioner. Counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that proper procedure was never adopted by the

Court for serving the notice upon the petitioner and thus, ex parte

proceedings were totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that

wife is living separately without any sufficient cause and thus she is not

entitled for the maintenance as granted by the learned Family Court and

hence, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

Heard.

2 of 4

Relationship between the petitioner and the respondents is not

in dispute. The matrimonial dispute took place between the petitioner and

the respondent-wife on account of which she filed the above-mentioned FIR

No.56 dated 27.10.2012 and thereafter filed a petition for grant of

maintenance as well. Record of the case would reveal that the learned

Family Court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner vide order dated

10.01.2013. It has been observed by the learned Family Court that service

was properly effected upon the petitioner. Report was received that he

refused to accept the notice and hence the Court was left with no other

option than to proceed ex parte. The contention raised by the counsel for the

petitioner regarding the compromise arrived at between the respondent-wife

is of no consequence as the Family Court had already granted the

maintenance to the respondent-wife vide order dated 04.07.2013. The

petitioner is an able bodied person. 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. Record of the case would show

that the petitioner has intentionally refused to accept the notice served upon

him by the Court. The proceedings filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are

summary in nature and has been provided to provide a speedy remedy to the

aggrieved wife and minor. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court

in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, 2021(2) SCC 324, the wife has a right of

living of same standard, which she was enjoying while living with the

husband.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the case, the

learned Family Court has granted the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (in total)

3 of 4

per month to the respondents, which cannot be said to be on the higher side.

In the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this

Court finds no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Family Court.

Thus, the petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

September 22, 2022                            ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss                                               JUDGE
1.    Whether speaking/reasoned ?                    Yes/No
2.    Whether reportable ?                           Yes/No




                               4 of 4