General Tendency For Wife To Amplify Needs & For Husband To Conceal Actual Income; Quantum Of Maintenance Must Be Balanced By Court: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the quantum of maintenance granted to the wife under Section 125 CrPC must be justifiable and realistic to avoid hardships to either of the spouses.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "there is a general tendency on the part of the wife to amplify her needs and the husband to conceal his actual income, making it difficult to determine the earning capacity of the rival claimants with exactitude. The rival claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities in order for the Court to arrive at quantum of maintenance which is just and fair in terms of principle of equistatus."

The quantum of maintenance must be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid occurrence of the two extremes of the maintenance being either paltry or extravagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury, added the Court.

It also said that the object and purpose behind granting maintenance is "to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage. At the same time, a just and careful balance must be struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon to punish the other spouse."

The judge further clarified 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.

These observations came in response to a revision plea of a man against the impugned order passed by a Family Court in maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC vide which the interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month was awarded to be paid to his wife.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that while granting interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, the Family Court has failed to adjust the amount of maintenance awarded under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

It was further contended that successive claims for maintenance are required to be adjusted or set off, if any interim maintenance is awarded in the earlier proceedings whether it is under DV Act or under Section 125 CrPC or any other proceedings under any statute.

After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that, "object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage. At the same time, a just and careful balance must be struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon to punish the other spouse."

The Courts are required to conduct the maintenance proceedings, while being alive to the legislative intent behind the provision under Section 125 CrPC in its true spirit, which is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents, it added.

Justice Brar highlighted that the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. were enacted as a measure to further social justice and protect dependent women, children and parents, which also fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.

The judge elucidated that another objective the legislature has sought to achieve by the provision is to provide maintenance pendente lite to the applicant spouse during proceedings emerging out of matrimonial disputes so that she/he can maintain herself/himself, have sufficient funds to pursue the litigation, and not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse.

Perusing the Family Court order, it said, that "a careful and just balance has been drawn, keeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and high cost of living corresponding to the reasonable needs of the respondents."

However, in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, [(2021) 2 SCC 324], the Court directed that the maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000 awarded under DV Act is to be set off against the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000 awarded under Section 125 CrPC.

In the light of the above, the plea was disposed of.

Pranshul Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 119