Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx
2026 Latest Caselaw 3190 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 9 April, 2026

                                                           1
                  CRM-M-10641-2020 (O&M)
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                AT CHANDIGARH
                  241
                                                                      CRM-M-10641-2020 (O&M)
                                                                       Date of decision: 09.04.2026
                  HARJINDER SINGH                                                  ...PETITIONER
                                                      VERSUS
                  DALVEER KAUR AND ANOTHER                                       ...RESPONDENTS

                  CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL

                  Present:           Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
                              Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the respondents.
                                           ***
                  Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.

1. Prayer in the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting

aside order dated 10.01.2020 of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib,

allowing the revision petition impugning order dated 19.04.2017 of learned

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was

married to respondent No.1 on 14.08.2005 at Noorpur, Tehsil Amloh, District

Fatehgarh Sahib. On account of disputes between the couple, respondent No.1

left the matrimonial home. Respondent No.2 was born out of the wedlock on

10.05.2006. A petition under 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondents,

wherein ex parte order was passed and maintenance was awarded, which

petitioner had been paying. Respondent No.1 and 2 filed an application under

Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance allowance, which

learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh rightly dismissed.

3. Learned counsel further submits that in revision, learned

Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib enhanced maintenance allowance of

respondent No.1 to ₹7,000/- per month and respondent No.2 to ₹3,000/- per

month with effect from the date of filing of application under Section 127

Cr.P.C. i.e. 15.03.2013. He submits that there was nothing in Section 127 HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.04.10 18:09 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-10641-2020 (O&M) Cr.P.C. authorizing the Court to pass orders with retrospective effect and

alteration of maintenance allowance was permissible only from the date of

order passed under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

4. He further submits that respondent No.1 had remarried and

respondent No.2 had been given in adoption and the revisional Court

enhanced maintenance allowance ignoring material facts. It was further urged

that respondent No.2 had since attained majority on 10.05.2024 and was not

entitled to maintenance allowance, after attaining majority. In support of his

arguments, he refers to the judgment of this Court in Major Singh Vs.

Joginder Kaur 1996(3) AICLR 756, judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court

in Pilli Venkanna Vs. Pilli Nookalamma and Another 1998 CriLJ 1922 and

judgment of Patna High Court in Lal Bahadur Paswan Vs. State of Bihar

and Another 2006(27) R.C.R. (Criminal) 830.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, in compliance with order

dated 11.09.2023 of this Court, has filed affidavit of respondent No.2 on the

lines that her date of birth is 10.05.2006 and that she has attained majority;

that her late mother-respondent No.1 never performed second marriage and

remained legally wedded wife of the petitioner; that she was never given in

adoption to Komalpreet Singh. He submits that learned Sessions Judge,

Fatehgarh Sahib rightly enhanced maintenance allowance with effect from

date of application.

6. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife and

minor child of petitioner was allowed in 2009 and ₹1,000/- per month was

awarded to respondent No.1 and ₹500/- per month to respondent No.2.

Application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by respondents on 15.03.2013

was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh observing that

there was no change in circumstances. On the basis of evidence led in the HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.04.10 18:09 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-10641-2020 (O&M) application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh

Sahib found that petitioner was earning ₹45,752/- per month. The observation ଵ that respondent No.2 who was earlier 1ଶ years old, was school going and there

was a change in circumstances cannot be faulted. The enhancement of

maintenance to ₹7,000/- per month for respondent No.1 and ₹3,000/- per

month for respondent No.2 is based on correct appreciation. The quantum

increase in the maintenance allowance, ordered by learned Sessions Judge,

Fatehgarh Sahib has not even been challenged.

7. Plea of the petitioner that respondent No.1 had remarried and was

not entitled to maintenance has no foundation either in the pleadings or in

evidence led in the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. It was not the case

of the petitioner, while contesting the application, that respondent No.1 had

remarried nor any evidence was led to this effect. The claim that respondent

No.2 had been given in adoption also has no foundational basis in the

pleadings or in evidence. If the minor child was not living with the mother

there can be no presumption that she had been given in adoption. On directions

of this Court, vide order dated 11.09.2023, respondent No.2, now major

daughter has furnished an affidavit stating that her mother who died on

02.02.2026 never remarried nor she was ever given or taken in adoption. The

argument that respondent No.1 remarried and respondent No.2 was given in

adoption must, therefore, fail.

8. The question which now arises for determination is whether

learned Sessions Judge, while deciding the revision petition could order

maintenance allowance to be paid with effect from the date of application

seeking alteration or from the date of order.

9. Though, Section 125 Cr.P.C. gives discretion to the Magistrate

to award maintenance from the date of application for maintenance, Section HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.04.10 18:09 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-10641-2020 (O&M) 127 Cr.P.C. does not confer any such discretion. Since, the statute is silent

regarding the date from which maintenance allowance could be altered, it was

not open to learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, while exercising

revisional powers, to award maintenance from the date of filing of the

application. By ordering enhancement from the date of the application under

Section 127 Cr.P.C., the Court in revision has overstepped its jurisdiction.

10. In S. Vijikumari Vs. Mowneshwarachari C. 2024 INSC 732

Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a matter relating to Section 25 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, considered an

identical question and observed as under:

"14. However, for the invocation of Section 25(2) of the Act, there must be a change in the circumstances after the order being passed under the Act. Alexander Sambath Abner vs. Miron Lede, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 2851 is also to the same effect. Thus, an order for alteration, modification or revocation operates prospectively and not retrospectively. Though the order for grant of a maintenance is effective retrospectively from the date of the application or as ordered by the Magistrate, the position is different with regard to an application for alteration in an allowance, which may incidentally be either an increase or a reduction - to take effect from a date on which the order of alteration is made or any other date such as from the date on which an application for alteration, modification or revocation was made depending on the facts of each case.

15. The position is analogous to Sections 125 and 127 of the CrPC, 1973, wherein the legislature under Section 125(2) of the CrPC, 1973 had given power to the Magistrate to grant maintenance from the date of the application, but did not give any such power under Section 127 of the CrPC, 1973. Therefore, under the Act, the order of alteration or modification or revocation could operate from the date of the said application being filed or as ordered by the Magistrate under Section 25(2) of the Act. Thus, the applicant cannot seek its retrospective applicability, so as to seek a refund of the amount already paid as per the original order."

HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.04.10 18:09 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-10641-2020 (O&M)

11. In view of the settled position of law, learned Sessions Judge,

Fatehgarh Sahib could not have ordered payment of the enhanced

maintenance with effect from the date of filing of the application. Order dated

10.01.2020 of learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, modified. The enhanced

amount of maintenance shall be payable to the respondents with effect from

the date of order i.e. 10.01.2020.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner

was not liable to pay maintenance to respondent No.2 who had since attained

majority. Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides that maintenance allowance would be

payable to the minor child, unable to maintain himself/herself. It is not the

case that respondent No.2 who has attained majority is by reason of any

physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain herself. The order

of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has not been passed by learned

Family Court, therefore, there can be no occasion to doubt that petitioner

would be liable to maintain respondent No.2 only till she attained majority.

13. The petition stands disposed of.

14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

                                                                       (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
                                                                                JUDGE
                  09.04.2026
                    HS.CHAUHAN           Whether Speaking/Reasoned :             Yes/No
                                         Whether Reportable :                    Yes/No




HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN
2026.04.10 18:09
I agree to specified portions of
this document