Criminal Misc.No.M-25515 of 2011(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.No.M-25515 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 21, 2011 Jarman Singh ... Petitioner Versus Sukhwinder Kaur and others ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Parveen K.Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated July 09 th, 2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Kapurthala affirming the order dated April 28 th, 2010 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapurthala, whereby, Sukhwinder Kaur – respondent/wife and her two minor children were awarded interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month on an application filed by her under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Sukhwinder Kaur and her two minor children filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Cr.P.C') to seek maintenance. Along with the application, they also filed an application to grant them interim maintenance till the decision of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. It was pleaded on their behalf that respondent No.1 was married with Jarman Singh – petitioner. She was maltreated in her matrimonial house and turned out of it. Jarman Singh is working in a cloth factory, in addition to dealing in property business. From both the sources, he is earning about Rs.35,000/- per month. She has no source of income to maintain herself and the children. 3. Jarman Singh - petitioner filed reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C as well as reply to the application for Criminal Misc.No.M-25515 of 2011(O&M) [2] interim maintenance. It was pleaded by him that he is working as a daily-wager with a contractor and earning Rs.70/- per day. He has to support his parents also. 4. The application under section 125 Cr.P.C is yet to be disposed of. For that, parties shall be given opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. It is not a stage to evaluate the evidence of the parties thread-barely as the learned District Judge, has only allowed the interim maintenance to the destitute wife and the children. 5. So far as the quantum of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.3500/- is concerned, such an amount cannot be said to be on higher side looking into the rising prices of the day-to-day basic necessities. The petitioner being husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot wriggle out the moral responsibility to maintain them. 6. It is established principle of law that while 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. 7. In view of the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of opinion that the impugned orders of the Courts below are proper and justified and no interference is called for. Hence, the petition is dismissed. November 21, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) Criminal Misc.No.M-25515 of 2011(O&M) [3] `gian' JUDGE