The Aryavarth Express
Agency(Punjab): In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has underscored the importance of granting justifiable and realistic maintenance to a wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to prevent hardships to either of the spouses involved in matrimonial disputes.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, presiding over the case, observed that there is a general tendency for the wife to amplify her needs and for the husband to conceal his actual income, making it challenging to determine the earning capacity of the rival claimants with exactitude. The Court emphasized that the rival claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities to enable the Court to arrive at a quantum of maintenance that is just and fair in terms of the principle of equistatus.
The Court further clarified that the quantum of maintenance must be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse while also avoiding the occurrence of two extremes – the maintenance being either paltry or extravagant. This ensures that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The object and purpose behind granting maintenance, according to the Court, is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy due to the failure of the marriage. At the same time, a just and careful balance must be struck to prevent this provision from being misused as a weapon to punish the other spouse.
Justice Brar also highlighted that the adequacy of the maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort. The Courts are required to conduct maintenance proceedings while being mindful of the legislative intent behind Section 125 CrPC, which is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children, and infirm parents, falling within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) and reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.
The observations were made in response to a revision plea filed by a man against an impugned order passed by a Family Court, which awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month to be paid to his wife under Section 125 CrPC. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Family Court failed to adjust the amount of maintenance awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) while granting interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Perusing the Family Court order, the High Court noted that a careful and just balance had been drawn, keeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and high cost of living corresponding to the reasonable needs of the respondents. However, in light of the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, [(2021) 2 SCC 324], the Court directed that the maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000 awarded under the DV Act be set off against the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000 awarded under Section 125 CrPC.
The Court’s ruling emphasizes the need for a balanced approach in determining maintenance, considering the actual earning capacities of both spouses and ensuring that the quantum is realistic and justifiable to prevent hardships on either side.
