CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

1. CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M)

Reserved on : 01.08.2025

Pronounced on: 08.10.2025

SHIVANI GARG AND ANR ..... Petitioners

VERSUS

RAJIV GARG ..... Respondent

2. CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

RAJIV GARG ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

SHIVANI GARG AND ANR ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Veer Iman Singh Gill, Advocate and

Ms. Anchal Kathuria, Advocate

for the petitioners in CRR(F)-903-2022 and

for the respondents in CRR(F)-717-2022.

Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner in CRR(F)-717-2022 and

for the respondent in CRR(F)-903-2022.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

This common judgment shall decide the aforementioned

revision petitions, as they stem from the same impugned order dated

14.07.2022. For the sake of brevity the facts are being extracted from

CRR(F)-903-2022.

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-2-

2. The present petition has been preferred seeking enhancement of

the quantum of maintenance granted to the petitioners vide order dated

14.07.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bathinda,

under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby final maintenance of Rs.35,000/-

per month was awarded in favour of the petitioner No.1-wife and

Rs.15,000/- per month was awarded in favour of petitioner No.2-son.

Modification of the order qua the date of grant of maintenance at this rate is

also sought.

3. Succinct factual narrative relevant for the disposal of the

petition is that the marriage between petitioner No.1-wife and respondent-

husband was solemnized on 21.06.2003 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies

and out of said wedlock, one male child i.e. petitioner No.2 was born on

07.04.2004, who has been residing with petitioner No.1. A matrimonial

dispute ensued between the couple, whereafter the petitioners filed a petition

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The respondent filed a

reply and contested the claim made by the petitioners. The learned Family

Court vide order dated 14.07.2022 granted maintenance of Rs.35,000/- per

month in favour of petitioner No.1 and Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of

petitioner No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this

Court by filing the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent

had subjected petitioner No.1 to constant harassment, physical assault, and

cruelty throughout their marriage. In fact she was subjected to beatings on

02.11.2008, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home along with her

minor son and taking shelter at her parental house in Bathinda. On

16.11.2008, the respondent even trespassed into her parental home, assaulted

and threatened her, leading to registration of FIR No.897 dated 16.11.2008

under Sections 451, 323 and 506 IPC, in which he was convicted by the

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-3-

learned JMIC, Bathinda. Petitioner No.1, having no independent source of

income, was constrained to file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on

10.06.2009, seeking maintenance for herself and her (then) minor son.

During the course of hearing of the said application, the petitioners duly

proved, by way of evidence, the fact that the respondent is gainfully

employed at a senior position in Maruti Udyog. It is submitted that the salary

slips (Ex. CW3/A) and the own affidavits of the respondent disclosed his

income as being in the range of Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- per month,

despite attempts by the respondent to misrepresent his true earnings by

projecting inflated deductions and understated figures. In fact, the

respondent during his cross-examination revealed his annual income as

being Rs.44,00,000/-. All the points, also raised herein, by the respondent to

contest the claim of the petitioners were duly addressed and discredited by

the learned Family Court, holding the petitioners entitled to receive

maintenance from the respondent. However, only a sum of Rs.35,000/- per

month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.15,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 was

awarded, that too from 02.01.2019 instead of from the date of application

i.e., 10.06.2009. Such finding is contrary to settled law laid down in Rajnish

v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, that maintenance is to be awarded from the date

of filing of the application seeking the same. It is further contended that

petitioner No.2, though now major, is still pursuing higher studies in B.Tech

and intends to continue his education up to M.Tech. As has been opined in

various judicial pronouncements, a father is morally bound to maintain a

child till completion of education. In the present case, the actual educational

and hostel expenses of petitioner No.2 exceed Rs.80,000/- per month. As

such, the circumstances warrant that the sum of maintenance awarded to

petitioner No.2, be at least enhanced. It is also contended that petitioner

No.1 does not have any independent source of income, and any claim made

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-4-

otherwise by the respondent is false and unsupported by any credible

evidence. Moreover, it is a settled proposition of law that the fact of a wife

being qualified does not preclude her from receiving maintenance from her

spouse, quantum of which must be fixed in view of the financial position of

either side. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners

has placed reliance on the judgments passed in Rajwinder Kaur vs.

Harvinder Singh, 2014(14) RCR(Criminal)729; Divesh Sapra vs. Latika

Sapra, 2025(1)RCR(Criminal)59; Sudhir Kumar Rehani vs. Indu Bala,

2011(2) RCR(Criminal)389.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent whilst refuting

the aforesaid contentions submits that petitioner No.1-wife had left the

society of the respondent without any reasonable cause and thereafter filed

an application for seeking maintenance from the respondent, despite being

extremely well qualified herself. It is submitted that initially, the respondent

made sincere efforts to persuade petitioner No.1 to return to the matrimonial

home and to resolve the disputes. However, as is crystal clear from the

conversation recorded between the parties, duly proved on record as

Ex.R8/1, petitioner No.1 had no intention of living with the respondent. In

fact, in the said conversation, she intimidated the respondent and even

admitted to physically assaulting him. A bare perusal of this conversation

reveals the mala fide intentions harboured by petitioner No.1. Reliance is

placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vibhor Garg v.

Neha (2025 SCC Online SC 1421), wherein it has been held that spousal

communication is admissible in matrimonial proceedings even if recorded

without consent, by virtue of the exception carved out under Section 122 of

the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that under Section 125(4) CrPC, a

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-5-

wife is disentitled to maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband

without sufficient reason. With regard to petitioner No.2, it is submitted that

he has attained the age of majority, being 21 years old, and being fully

capable of maintaining himself, is not legally entitled to claim maintenance

from the respondent. It is the further contention that petitioner No.1 is

herself gainfully employed and has independent means to sustain herself.

Though she denied having filed them, her ITRs for the assessment years

2011–2014, proved on record as Ex.R6/1 to Ex.R6/3, clearly establish her

gross annual income as being Rs.2,90,000/-. She is also highly qualified,

holding degrees of M.A., B.Ed., and P.G.D.C.A., and thus fully capable of

earning her livelihood. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the

respondent is very limited. His monthly obligations, liabilities, and debts far

exceed his take-home income. It is submitted that the law is well settled that

maintenance has to be assessed keeping in view the status of the parties at

the time of separation, and not on the basis of the subsequent financial

progress of the husband. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rinku Baheti v.

Sandesh Sharda (2024 (4) Law Herald (SC) 3405) has categorically held

that maintenance is not a device for equalization of wealth and that the

husband cannot be burdened to maintain his wife as per his enhanced

financial status after separation. Since the parties have been living separately

since November 2008, when the respondent was earning only about

Rs.36,177/- per month, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court at

Rs.50,000/- per month is clearly disproportionate and unjustified. The

impugned order, fixing maintenance at Rs.35,000/- per month in favour of

petitioner No.1 and Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of petitioner No.2, is

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-6-

thus perverse, based on conjectures, and hence is liable to be set aside, or in

the alternative, substantially modified.

6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made

by learned counsel for the parties and meticulously perused the record.

7. Vide order dated 14.07.2025, passed by this Court, the parties

were directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this

Court, to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution to the dispute.

However, as per the report submitted by the Mediation and Conciliation

Centre, the matter has been returned back as unsettled.

8. Before proceeding to decide the question of grant of

maintenance, it would be apposite to reiterate that provision of Section 125

Cr.PC is a manifestation of the legislative intent to prevent vagrancy and

destitution of wives, children and parents who are unable to maintain

themselves. This spirit of social justice also finds footing in the enabling

provisions of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of

India. The adequacy of the maintenance so fixed must be determined by the

yardstick of the dependent spouse and children being able to lead a life of

reasonable comfort.

9. While adjudicating the appeals pertaining to an order of

maintenance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Shamima Farooqui

Vs. Shahid Khan (2015) SCC 708 that “18. From the aforesaid enunciation

of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal

when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the

woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is

deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes,

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-7-

she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her

fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only

comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give

monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be

allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of

maintenance allowance.”

10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Shailja v. Khobbana”,

(2018) 12 SCC 199, while distinguishing between "capable earning" and

"actual earning", held that they are different requirements. Merely because

the wife is capable of earning was held not to be a sufficient reason to reduce

the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. Following this dictum of law,

the Delhi High Court in “Sh. Arun Vats vs. Ms. Pallavi Sharma and anr.”

CRL.REV.P. 751/2018, dismissed the revision petition challenging the order

granting interim maintenance of Rs. 33,005/- to the wife, a professional and

duly enrolled advocate though claimed to be not working, and minor child.

Similar had been the decision of this Court in Chanchal Mehta vs. Supriya

Mehta, Crl. Revision No. 365 of 2016.

11. The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to

ensure that the dependent spouse and children are 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 Cr.P.C in its true

spirit, which is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women,

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-8-

children and infirm parents. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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 of India.

12. While dealing with the issue of maintenance in extenso, a two

Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another

(2021) 2 SCC 324, laid down the criteria for determining quantum of

maintenance and issued the following directions:

VI Final Directions

130.In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B -1

to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following

directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India:

(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction

131.To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid

conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has

become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is

uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District

Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:

(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a

party under different statutes, the Court would consider an

adjustment or setoff, of the amount awarded in the previous

proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount

is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding:

(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the

previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the

subsequent proceeding;

(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires

any modification or variation, it would be required to be done

in the same proceeding

(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance

132.The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-9-

as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable,

shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings,

including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court /

District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout

the country.

(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance

133.For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an

applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated

in Part B III of the judgment.

134.The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the

concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other

factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and

circumstances of a case.

(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded

135.We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be

awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as

held in Part B-IV above.

(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance

136.For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is

directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced

under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of

the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C may be applicable. The arder

of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court

as per the provisions of the CPC more particularly Sections 51, 55,

58, 60 r.w. Order XXI."

13. Reverting to the case in hand, a perusal of the impugned order

passed by the learned Family Court makes it evident that the court has duly

considered the material placed before it at the time of deciding the

application for maintenance. The respondent has argued that petitioner No.1

is disentitled to maintenance on account of her alleged voluntary desertion,

concealment with respect to her earnings and financial resources, and on the

ground of her being well educated. The record, however, reveals that

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-10-

petitioner No.1 was constrained to leave the matrimonial home in November

2008 owing to cruelty and assault, culminating in registration of FIR No.897

dated 16.11.2008, wherein the respondent was convicted. The contention of

the respondent counsel that the call recording between the parties was not

taken into consideration, the contextual background of the entire

conversation between the parties, especially given the circumstances of

matrimonial disturbances between the two leading to higher tempers, must

be seen, which lacks in the said recording. Such circumstances constitute

“sufficient reason” within the meaning of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. and

disentitle the respondent from raising a plea of desertion. With respect to the

purported working status of petitioner No.1 and her consequential earnings,

the learned Family Court had, after thorough persual of the material on

record, concluded that no cogent proof had been adduced by the respondent-

husband to establish that his wife had been gainfully employed or deriving a

regular income sufficient for her sustenance. Furthermore, the mere reason

that a woman is well qualified does not ipso facto disentitle her from seeking

maintenance. It was the further noting of the learned Family Court that the

respondent-husband had, in his duly sworn affidavit dated 09.11.2021,

disclosed his monthly income as being Rs.3,21,079/- while in his affidavit

dated 24.02.2022, stated his carry home salary as being Rs.1,35,000/- per

month. It was under such circumstances that the learned Family Court fits

the quantum of maintenance.

14. With respect to the contention of learned counsel for respondent

that only the financial status of the parties at the time of filing of

maintenance application must be taken into consideration, the same cannot

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-11-

be treated as a tenable argument. What must be seen is that the rival

claimants 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, 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.

15. Insofar as the question of maintenance to petitioner No.2

beyond the age of majority is concerned, though the law is clear in that

respect, however, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment passed by

the Delhi High Court in Urvashi Aggarwal v. Inderpaul Aggarwal, 2021(4)

RCR Criminal 504, wherein, while referring to a plethora of judgments

passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that the arrangement so made

to facilitate the education of a major son needed no interference. The

relevant paras thereof read thus:

“9. It is further pertinent to note that it is true that in majority of

households, women are unable to work due to sociocultural as well

as structural impediments, and, thus, cannot financially support

themselves. However, in households wherein the women are working

and are earning sufficiently to maintain themselves, it does not auto-

matically mean that the husband is absolved of his responsibility to

provide sustenance for his children. A father has an equal duty to

provide for his children and there cannot be a situation wherein it is

only the mother who has to bear the burden of expenses for raising

and educating the children.

10. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the reality that simply attaining

majority does not translate into the understanding that the major son

is earning sufficiently. At the age of 18, it can be safely assumed that

the son is either graduating from 12th standard or is in his first year

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-12-

of college. More often than not, it does not place him in a position

wherein he can earn to sustain or maintain himself. It further places

the entire burden on the mother to bear the expenses of educating the

children without any contribution from the father, and

this Court cannot countenance such a situation.

11. The Supreme Court and other High Courts have, in a slew of

judgements, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case placed

before them, upheld the maintenance allowance granted to a son

post attaining majority on the ground that the father has a duty to fi-

nance basic education of the child and that the child cannot be de-

prived of his right to be educated due to his parents getting divorced.

In Chandrashekhar v. Swapnil and Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos.

265-266 of 2021, the Supreme Court had upheld the arrangement to

provide maintenance to the son until he completed his first degree

course after high school so as to ensure that he becomes a self- sup-

porting individual and can live in dignity. In Rita Dutta and Anr. v.

Subhendu Dutta, (2005) 6 SCC 619, the Supreme Court had main-

tained the allowance which had been granted to the elder son who

had attained majority.

12. In Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat v. Ajayveer Chapotkat, Civil

Writ Petition No. 2117 of 2012, while allowing a writ petition on the

question as to whether maintenance could be paid to the son by the

father even after attainment of majority, the Bombay High Court had

held as follows:

"16. A major son may not be entitled for maintenance under

the Hindu Marriage Act. In the present case, the Petitioner

has made out a specific claim for educational expenses which

can be availed by him after attaining the age of 18 years. The

son/claimant would attain majority as far as age is

concerned, however, it would not be the proper age for

becoming economically independent so as to earn his living.

In the given facts of the case, a major son of a the well-

educated and economically sound parents can claim

educational expenses from his father or mother irrespective of

the fact that he has attained majority. It is not maintenance in

strict senses as contemplated under section 125 of the Code of

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-13-

Criminal Procedure, 1973 or maintenance as contemplated

under Section 20 under Hindu Marriage Act".

xxxx

"20. In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that since the

father i.e. the respondent is well placed financially, it would

be incumbent upon him to bear educational expenses of his

son till he is able to earn his own living or till he completes

his education. This is in fact, a concession to a major son and

therefore, the Petition filed by the Petitioner deserves to be

allowed".

13. The Madras High Court , in T. Vimala v. S. Ramakrishnan, Crl.

R.C. (MD) No. 180 of 2014, while noting that daughters could be

maintained after attaining majority as a result of section 20 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, had emphasised on how the law, i.e. Section

125 of the Code, had to be interpreted liberally as well as the obliga-

tion of a father to meet educational expenses of his children. It had

observed as follows:

"18. The very purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 is also to

protect the children from want of roof, food, clothing and

necessities of life. Education is an important aspect in

children's life. Amounts need to be spent for it. Those

expenses are educational expenses. Every father is bound to

provide a good education to his children. No father is

expected to produce a criminal or a disorderly person. Thus,

he has to bear the educational expenses of his children.

Children have to maintain their education by meeting the

educational expenses. Even a man on the pavement will be

dreaming of his children becoming a qualified person in life.

Therefore, the obligation of a father to maintain, to meet the

educational expenses of his children cannot be excluded for

the component of maintenance. Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 is

not only for food for life, it should also be for food for

thought. Otherwise, so far as the children are concerned, we

will be doing violence to the very object of

Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973"

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-14-

21. The context of Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to ensure that the

wife and the children of the husband are not left in a state of destitu-

tion after the divorce. The husband must also carry the financial bur-

den of making certain that his children are capable of attaining a po-

sition in society wherein they can sufficiently maintain themselves.

The mother cannot be burdened with the entire expenditure on the

education of her son just because he has completed 18 years of age,

and the father cannot be absolved of all responsibilities to meet the

education expenses of his son because the son may have attained the

age of majority, but may not be financially independent and could be

incapable of sustaining himself. A father is bound to compensate the

wife who, after spending on children, may hardly be left with any-

thing to maintain herself.

22. In light of the above, the application is accordingly dismissed.”

16. Reverting to the case in hand, though petitioner No.2 has now

attained the age of majority, however, the Court cannot turn a blind eye to

the fact that he is at a crucial stage of career building, that would form the

basis for his life to come. It is also not the case where the father is not in a

position to support the education of his child, who is pursuing his Bachelors

in Engineering. Therefore, given the sound economic status of the

respondent, and the fact that both his parents are also well qualified, this

Court, to secure the ends of justice and only for the purpose of addressing

the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, is not inclined to deprive

petitioner No.2 of financial support from his father which has been granted

by the learned family Court on account of his educational expenses.

17. As a corollary of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order

is clarified and modified to the extent that the maintenance to the petitioners

is to be paid from the date of filing of the maintenance application i.e.

CRR(F)-903-2022(O&M) and

CRR(F)-717-2022(O&M)

-15-

10.06.2009. Uptil 31.12.2018, the same shall be paid at the rate of Rs 20,000

per month (Rs.15,000/- in favour of petitioner No.1-wife and Rs. 5,000/- in

favour of petitioner No.2-son). Thereafter, the maintenance shall be to the

tune of Rs. 35,000/- per month to petitioner No.1-wife, as provided for in the

impugned order dated 14.07.2022. However, maintenance to be paid to

petitioner No.2-son is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per month, to support his

educational expenses. It is also clarified that maintenance to petitioner No.2

shall be paid till the date of his graduation. Accordingly, the petition bearing

No.CRR(F)-903-2022 stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

18. For reasons discussed hereinabove, the petition filed by the

husband (CRR(F)-717-2022) challenging the impugned order dated

14.07.2022 is dismissed.

19. Needless to say that in case of change in circumstances, the

parties would be at a liberty to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with

law.

20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)

disposed of.

(KIRTI SINGH)

JUDGE

08.10.2025

Kavita

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No