Children Cannot Be Left to Destitution Due to Parental Discord: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ₹9,000 Monthly Maintenance for Three Minors

“Section 125 CrPC embodies the constitutional spirit of social justice”— In a judgment reinforcing the protective purpose of maintenance laws, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a challenge to a Family Court order awarding maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC to three minor children. Justice Kirti Singh, sitting in Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, ruled that the impugned maintenance award of ₹3,000 per month per child was fair, just, and legally sound.

“Maintenance is a Social Duty, Not a Charitable Gesture”

The petitioner-father Jitender Tiwari challenged the Family Court’s decision dated 19 February 2025, which directed him to pay ₹9,000 per month in total to his three minor children (respondents 2 to 4). He argued that he earned only ₹10,500 per month as a labourer and that his estranged wife—who had custody of the children—was earning ₹8,000 and receiving additional maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act.

Rejecting the contention, the Court observed: “It is the joint responsibility of both parents to maintain their children. The Family Court rightly assessed the petitioner’s income at ₹17,000 per month, based on his status as an able-bodied labourer.”

Justice Kirti Singh further noted: “Maintenance provisions are not meant to punish a spouse. They are a tool of protection to prevent destitution and ensure the survival of dependent women and children in a fractured matrimonial landscape.”

Citing SC Precedents, Court Stresses Protective Nature of Section 125 CrPC

The High Court cited authoritative Supreme Court decisions in support of its view, including Vimala v. Veeraswamy [(1991) 2 SCC 375] and Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479]. Quoting from the latter, the Court emphasized:

“The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 CrPC clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.”

The Court also relied heavily on the landmark guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], reiterating the principles of income disclosure, equitable assessment, and socio-economic balancing:

“Quantum of maintenance must be realistic and justifiable. It must be adequate to provide the dependent children a life of reasonable comfort and not be paltry or extravagant.”

“Petitioner Failed to Show Any Perversity in Findings”

After carefully reviewing the Family Court record, the High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the lower court’s findings:

“The assessment of income and needs has been done in consonance with legal standards and socio-economic realities. There is no perversity or irregularity in the impugned order that warrants interference.”

The Court pointedly rejected the argument that the wife’s earnings disqualified the children from receiving maintenance:

“It was rightly recorded that maintenance to respondent no.1 was declined. The order awarding maintenance only to the children, despite the mother’s income and separate DV Act maintenance, reflects a balanced approach.”

Date of Decision: 06 May 2025