Harish Bhardwaj vs Kumari Trisha

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner [Harish Bhardwaj] being the father of Respondent-Trisha [minor daughter] has come up before this Court, in revision proceedings, assailing the order dated 14.10.2025 [referred to as the Impugned Order], passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla [referred to as the ‘Family Court’], in Case Registration No 86 of 2022, Smt. Meenakshi Sharma and another versus Harish Bhardwaj, awarding an amount of Rs 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the Respondent-daughter [Kumari Trisha] from the date of filing of petition on 22.11.2022, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’]; with the prayer to quash and set aside the aforesaid order.

Meenakshi Sharma being the wife and the Respondent-Kumari Trisha, being the daughter of Harish Bharadwaj, had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, bearing Case Registration No. 86 of 2022, for maintenance of Rs 20000/-[at the rate of Rs 10,000/-each to both] before the Learned Family Court Kinnaur on 22.11.2022. During the pendency of instant petition, Meenakshi Sharma [Wife] withdrew her claim against the Respondent-husband [Harish Bhardwaj in terms of the order dated 01.11.2024 passed by Learned Family Court concerned.

125 Cr.P.C. PROCEEDINGS:

In Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings, the grievance as set up by Respondent-minor daughter [Kumari Trisha] is that, at the relevant time, she was studying in 5^th Standard in DAV School Duttnagar and was about 9 years of age and on behalf of the minor Respondent-daughter [Kumari Trisha], her natural guardian [her mother] pursued claim for maintenance of Rs 10,000/-per month against the respondent-father [Harish Bhardwaj], with the plea that her father had not been maintaining her and he has failed to perform his legal and statutory obligations towards his daughter. It is in this backdrop, a prayer was made to allow the claim for maintenance.

FAMILY COURT KINNAUR:

3(i). In reply, the petitioner, [Harish Bhardwaj] opposed the claim for maintenance, on the ground that he had served as Senior Manager in Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company from June 2007 to April 2009 and he left the job from the aforesaid Company. It is averred that he started working with Soaring Hills Solution Pvt. Ltd. for some time and had worked abroad till July, 2014. It was averred that he had consultancy business under name and style of “Harish Bhardwaj & Company” and during Pandemic COVID-19, the business was disrupted but after Pandemic COVID-19 was over the business had improved. It is further averred that he has no immovable property and the petition was filed just to harass him. In this background, the claim of petitioner was opposed with the prayer to dismiss the petition.

FAMILY COURT, KINNAUR:

3(ii). In rejoinder, the Respondent-minor daughter [Trisha], through her mother Meenakshi Sharma], stated that, it was due to compelling circumstances, that the mother as well as the respondent-daughter were forced to shift elsewhere and the daughter was studying in DAV School Duttnagar in 5^th standard.

3(iii). Learned Family Court, framed the Issues as to whether respondent-daughter [Kumari Trisha] was entitled for the maintenance @ Rs 10,000 per month as claimed.

3(iv). During the course of proceedings before Learned Family Court, the mother of respondent [being natural guardian of minor] Smt. Meenakshi Sharma, appeared as PW-1 to assert a claim for monthly maintenance on behalf of the Respondent -daughter [Minor Kumari Trisha]. PW-1, proved the school expenses i.e. Rs 3,000/- as transportation charges and Rs 1840/- as tuition fees as per Mark M-1 and Mark M-2. Even, PW-1 deposed that though she had joined a job in October 2017 but due to health reasons she left the job in 2022 and thereafter she has no source of income and she was dependent on her parents, so as to maintain herself and the minor child-Trisha.

Petitioner-father examined himself as RW-1 before Learned Family Court, admitting that he had not paid any maintenance to his daughter. He deposed that he has no obligation to maintain his wife as well as respondent-minor daughter. He deposed that he had served at various places and presently he was unemployed but he was ready and willing to take custody of the minor daughter.

3(v). Learned Family Court Kinnaur passed the Impugned Order on 14.10.2025 awarding the maintenance of Rs 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand] per month to the Respondent-daughter from the date of filing of the petition on 22.11.2022; with the findings that the respondent-minor daughter was a growing child and for her proper upbringing, besides the school expenses {i.e. monthly tuition fee and monthly transportation of Rs 4,820/- per month}, and the requirement of other necessities including food, clothing, medical expenses etc., the maintenance of Rs 10,000/- per month was awarded by the Learned Family Court, Kinnaur in terms of the Impugned Order.

In the instant revision proceedings, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the firstly, the Impugned Order was against the facts and law; and secondly; the petitioner-father was unemployed and had no work and therefore he could not be burdened with the amount of maintenance by ignoring his financial capacity; and thirdly, the petitioner-father cannot be saddled with liability as he has to look after his aged parents and meet their existing liabilities and personal expenses; and fourthly, on the plea that Impugned Order awarding the maintenance of Rs 10,000/-per month to Respondent-minor daughter [Trisha] was excessive and not commensurate with his income and status; and in this backdrop, a prayer was made to set-aside the Impugned Order.

Per-contra, Learned Counsel for respondent [Kumari Trisha] has supported the Impugned Order passed by Learned Family Court, with the plea that merely because the husband as unemployed is no ground to evade his legal obligations towards the Respondent-minor daughter. He submits that bare necessities including food, clothing, medical expenses etc., including inflationary costs of living justifying the amount of maintenance awarded to the Respondent-daughter.

5(i). In addition, Learned Counsel for the Respondent-minor daughter places reliance on a judgment dated 01.10.2024, passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kinnaur at Rampur, Bushehar, District Shimla (H.P.), in CIS Registration Nos 175/2024 & 368/2024, titled as Smt. Meenakshi Sharma vs Harish Bhardwaj, in proceedings for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended from time to time, to establish that though the marriage between her parents stood dissolved by a decree with mutual consent but in aforesaid proceedings, petitioner-Harish Bhardwaj has made a statement on 01.10.2024, that even after this divorce, he will continue to pay the maintenance to the minor child {i.e. the respondent herein} and he will abide by the final verdict by Learned Family Court, Kinnaur, in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. proceedings, in the following terms:-

In above backdrop, it was contented that once the petitioner-father had made a statement / given an undertaking before Learned Family Court concerned that he will abide by the outcome of the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and will give the maintenance to her daughter then, the filing of present petition was a devise to delay and also to deprive the respondent-daughter of her an absolute right of maintenance.

Heard, Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Sharma, Learned Counsel, for the respondent.

Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, including requisitioned records, this Court is of the considered view that the Impugned Order passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court on 14.10.2025, in Case Registration No 86 of 2022, in awarding the monthly maintenance to the Respondent-daughter [Kumari Trisha] of Rs 10000/-from the date of filing of the petition on 22.11.2022, does not warrant any interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, for the following reasons:-

7(i). Deposition of PW-1, establishes that after 2022, she being the mother of the minor daughter Respondent-Kumari Trisha had left the job and she has no source of income and was dependant on her parents. Even, testimony of the petitioner as RW-1, before Learned Family Court admits that he is unemployed since 2020 and his daughter is studying in 5^th Standard in DAV School at Duttnagar and he has not paid any maintenance to his daughter. The plea of the petitioner that he was under no obligation to maintain his wife and daughter in view of his unemployment, is untenable and his unemployment is not a ground to escape the liability to maintain the respondent-daughter [Kumari Trisha]. Nothing has been placed on record to establish that he was bodily disabled and due to such infirmity was incapacitated to earn. In the absence of any such proof, petitioner -father cannot be absolved of his legal obligation to maintain his minor daughter. Merely because respondent-daughter was living with her mother cannot be a ground for the petitioner-father to avoid his statutory obligation. Accepting the plea of the petitioner-father not to maintain his child shall defeat the intent and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and shall also violate the social purpose sought to be achieved by safeguarding the “dignity of minor by providing proper child support” in growing age, so as to uplift her status and living with growing age of the Respondent-minor daughter herein.

7(ii). Even perusal of affidavit dated 08.08.2023 filed by the petitioner-father [Harish Bhardwaj] in proceedings before Learned Family Court, Kinnaur, admits that he has not been maintaining his minor daughter. This stand of the petitioner is untenable in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anju Garg & Anr. vs Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC Online SC 1314 that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children and once the father was able-bodied then, he was required to earn money even by physical labour and he could not avoid his bounden obligation to maintain his minor child. On the other hand, even the affidavit filed by the mother on behalf of the respondent-daughter before Learned Family Court on 20.11.2022 and on 18.01.2024, establish that the expenses of respondent-daughter are more than Rs 15000/-[Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only] per month. Petitioner-father has chosen not to file any rebuttal to the affidavit dated 18.01.2024. Further, considering the fact that the minor child was of a growing age, requiring proper upbringing including proper diet, clothing, medical expenses and other ancillary day-to-day expenses besides the school expenses of Rs 4,840/-per month [Rs 3,000/- as transportation expenses as per Mark 1 and Rs 1840/- per month as tuition fee as per Mark 2], coupled with the inflationary costs of living which has increased manifold and the expansion of needs and relative requirements with growing age and advancement of education as she moves to the higher classes, requiring additional expenses for education and otherwise, therefore, considering all the factors cumulatively and after taking a holistic view of the matter, the Impugned Order dated 14.10.2025 awarding an amount of Rs 10000/- [Rs Ten Thousand Only] per month as maintenance is fair, just and reasonable and commensurate to the status of respondent-daughter, who is of growing age and requires proper upbringing.

7(iii). Even, in terms of order dated 01.10.2024, referred to in Para 5 (i) of this judgement, the claim of the respondent-daughter is fortified in view of the statement made by petitioner-father in proceedings between the parents for mutual divorce decided on 01.10.2024, whereby, the petitioner-father had made a statement or undertaking before Learned Family Court in HMA proceedings that he shall provide the interim maintenance and final amount on outcome of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C, which were pending before Learned Family Court concerned. Notably, once proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stand decided in terms of Impugned Order on 14.10.2025, awarding an amount of maintenance of Rs 10000/- per month then, the petitioner-father cannot resile from his statement or undertaking furnished before Learned Family Court concerned. Invoking the revisional remedy appears to be an indirect attempt to wriggle out of the solemn statement made or an undertaking furnished before the Family Court concerned is an abuse of process of this Court.

Even nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to assert and establish that order dated 01.10.2024 passed in HMA proceedings has been modified or were set-aside. That being so, once the order has attained finality therefore, this Court upholds the Impugned Order dated 14.10.2025, entitling the respondent-minor daughter (Trisha) for the monthly maintenance.

7(iv). Reliance placed by Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No.430 of 2019, titled as Seema Kumari vs Rajesh Kumar & connected matter, decided on 07.12.2021 will not come to the assistance of the petitioner and same is distinguishable on facts.

7(v). Even, reliance placed on the judgment by Learned Counsel for petitioner in Chandrashekar vs Swapnil & Anr., (2021) 12 SCC 624 is of no help to the petitioner for the reason that the aforesaid judgment is distinguishable, whereby, the monthly maintenance was reduced in the backdrop where a fixed amount of more than Rs 6 Lakhs was paid by the father to minor child and it is this backdrop that amount of monthly maintenance was reduced in said proceedings. However, perusal of Para No 9.3 of the judgment in the case of Chandrashekar (supra) rather negates the plea of the petitioner, for the reason, that though the quantum of monthly maintenance was reduced but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the claim of the minor child therein, for increase in maintenance for succeeding years.

7(vi). Besides the above, this Court observes that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is invokable only in case the impugned order suffers from illegality or impropriety or irregularity in proceedings. Nothing has been pointed out by Learned Counsel for the petitioner-father that Impugned Order dated 14.10.2025 suffers from illegality or impropriety or irregularity in proceedings. Merely because a different conclusion could have been drawn is not a ground to show indulgence in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, in the light of the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 [Para 20].

Based on the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the Impugned Order dated 14.10.2025, awarding the maintenance to the respondent-daughter [Kumari Trisha], being minor child of petitioner-father [Harish Bhardwaj], by awarding an amount of Rs 10,000/- per month after considering all the broad-parameters is fair, just and reasonable, proportionate and is also commensurate with the status and requirements of the minor child, who is at a growing age. The amount of maintenance awarded is not required to be interdicted by this Court, in the absence of any illegality or impropriety or correctness or irregularity in proceedings conducted by Learned Family Court concerned. Consequently, Impugned Order dated 14.10.2025 passed by Learned Family Court is upheld and the present petition, sans merit, is dismissed.

No other point was raised/argued.

In view of above discussion and for reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant Revision Petition, is dismissed, in following terms:

In aforesaid terms, the instant Revision Petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.