Ensure maintenance provision is not wielded as tool to punish spouse: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 16

In a significant judgment liable to change the way maintenance is awarded to an estranged partner in a matrimonial dispute, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for striking a “delicate balance” to safeguard the welfare of the dependent spouse on the one hand, and simultaneously prevent the legal provision’s misuse on the other.

The ruling came after Justice Harpreet Singh Brar took note of common tendency among wives to exaggerate their needs and husbands to conceal true income. The Bench was hearing a husband’s petition challenging order dated November 17, 2023, passed by Sirsa family court under Section 125 of the CrPC awarding interim monthly maintenance of Rs 10, 000 to his wife and minor son. Justice Brar asserted the object behind granting maintenance was to prevent the dependent spouse from being reduced to destitution or vagrancy following the marriage’s failure. At the same time, a just and careful balance was required to be struck to ensure that the provision did 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. 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 of India,” Justice Brar observed.

The Bench added another objective sought to be achieved by the provision was to provide maintenance “pendente lite” or pending litigation to the applicant spouse during proceedings emerging out of matrimonial disputes so that she could maintain herself, have sufficient funds to pursue litigation, and not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse.

But there was a general tendency on the wife’s part 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 were required to scrupulously bring on record their actual earning capacities for the court to arrive at just and fair quantum of maintenance. It was required to be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid “occurrence of two extremes of the maintenance being either paltry or extravagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury”.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Brar observed a careful and just balance had been drawn considering the spiralling inflation rates and high cost of living.