IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 7361 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 26, 2009 Rajinder Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Gurjeet Kaur and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Sidhu,Advocate for the respondents ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 25.1.2008 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting interim maintenance to the respondents and also the subsequent proceedings. The case of the applicants-Gurjeet Kaur and Navneet Singh (wife and child of the petitioner) and petitioner-Rajinder Singh, as noticed by the trial Court, in paras 1 and 2 of its impugned order is as under:- “Arguments heard on the question of grant of ad-interim maintenance to the applicants during pendency of their present petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C. It has been pleaded therein that both the applicants were thrown out by the respondent on account of demand of more dowry. They were, thus, living with parents of applicant no.1 as respondent has willfully neglected to maintain them. They had no source of income to survive in these hard days of high prices nor they had any movable or immovable property in Crl. Misc. M No. 7361 of 2008 -2- their names, whereas respondent was presently working as Steno in the office of Markfed, Sector 35, Chandigarh and getting salary about Rs.18,000/- PM and both of them thus required maintenance for their survival. In reply on the other hand, while denying all the allegations, it was submitted on behalf of respondent that the present application for interim maintenance was not maintainable as the petitioner no.1 herself deserted the respondent without any sufficient cause. It has also been submitted that the petitioner No.1 was already married with one Pardeep Singh son of Surinder Singh of village Ghanauli where she stayed only for 15-20 days and after getting divorce from said Pardeep Singh, she then got married with one Daljit Singh son of Atma Singh of village Desu Majra where she again stayed only for 15 days and after getting divorce from said Daljit Singh also, she was then got married with the respondent. The petitioner no.1 is habitual of playing fraud with the family of her in laws and seeking divorces after taking huge amount. The petitioner no.1 was residing with her mother against the wishes of the respondent and his family members. The petitioner was having diploma in cutting and stitching and she was earning the handsome amount and was having sufficient source of income,whereas the respondent was drawing only Rs.7520/ PM as salary. She was never willfully neglected, rather applicant on her own left her matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse.” Crl. Misc. M No. 7361 of 2008 -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had erred in allowing interim maintenance to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent,on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was getting net salary of Rs.12325/- per month. Hence, the amount of interim maintenance allowed by the trial Court could not be said to be on the higher side. A provision has been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of Section 125 to serve a social object and protect the deserted wives and children from destitution and vagrancy. The provision is remedial rather than punitive. Petitioner had got married to respondent No.1 in May,2004 and they were blessed with a son. Respondent No.2, who is aged one year and ten months, and is residing with respondent No.1. As per the salary slip of the petitioner placed on record, petitioner is earning net salary of Rs.12325/- per month. The trial Court vide the impugned order allowed Rs.900/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent No.1 and Rs.600/- as interim maintenance to respondent No.2 . The said amount of interim maintenance allowed by the trial Court in these days of high prices cannot be said to be on the higher side. It is the duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and child who are not capable of maintaining themselves. In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge May 26, 2009 arya