IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25416 of 2009. Date of Decision : 14.7.2011. Bal Kishan ...... Petitioner Versus Manjit Kaur ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH J. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated August 5th, 2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala affirming the order dated January 9th, 2007 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala, whereby, Manjit Kaur-respondent was awarded maintenance allowance of Rs.1000/- per month on an application filed by her under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that he is not husband of the Manjit Kaur-respondent hence is not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent. 3. This issue was also raised before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court has dealt with this issue and observed that in the nomination form (Exhbit PW-1/B) the petitioner has mentioned the name of respondent as his wife. In the essentiality certificate (Exhibit PW-6/A) name of Manjit Kaur-respondent was mentioned as his wife. Hence the plea of the petitioner was rightly turned down by the Court below. So far as amount of maintenance awarded to respondent-wife at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month is concerned, it is not at all on higher side. The cost of living has increased manifold. Rs.1000/- is peanuts, hardly sufficient to keep body and soul together. It is established principle of law that while Criminal Misc. No. M-25416 of 2009. (2) dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the women, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of destitution and starvation. 4. In view of the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of opinion that the impugned order of the Court below is proper and justified and no interference is called for. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 14.7.2011. SN