Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74511 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33290 of 2024 Applicant :- Pradeep Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad,Sandhya Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash impugned order dated 06.07.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj in Case no.365/12/23 (Smt. Priyanka vs. Pradeep) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. P.S.Thathiya, District-Kannauj or to stay the effect and operation of aforesaid orders during pendency of the present application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 on 02.05.2022 and due to matrimonial discord, his wife/O.P. no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which has been allowed by the court below vide ex parte order dated 06.07.2024, whereby the applicant has been directed to pay 7000 per month to his wife/O.P. no.2 and ₹ ₹2000 per month to his minor daughter/O.P. no.3. He further submitted that the applicant is ready to keep his wife and daughter, but O.P. no.2 is not ready to live with him due to her ego. He next contended that the applicant works as a labour and his financial status is not so sound so that he could be able to pay the interim maintenance amount to opposite parties, which is on the higher side. In the aforesaid backdrop, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contends that the Court below has awarded maintenance of ₹9000 per month to two people( ₹7000 per month to his wife/O.P. no.2 and ₹2000 per month to his minor daughter/O.P. no.3), which is considerably meagre amount for the said purpose, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders. 5. To buttress his argument, learned A.G.A. has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2875 wherein the Court has held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to ensure that a woman, who has left or thrown out of matrimonial house, can sustain herself and her children. The Court further held that concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean "to lead the life of an animal", rather the wife would be entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. 6. In the case in hand, on perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the trial court had directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount 9000 per month to his wife/O.P. no.2 and ₹ minor daughter/O.P. no.3. Even though, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to keep both the respondents with him but there is nothing on record to show his bonafide except a bald statement. In fact, the conduct of the applicant itself discloses his intention, when he is not even paying the maintenance amount to his wife/O.P. no.2 and minor daughter/O.P. no.3 and filing cases and objections just to delay the payment, then how it can be believed that he will keep his wife and minor daughter along with him. 7. In view of aforesaid proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that filing of this application is nothing but pure abuse of process of law and there is no merit in this application as the same has been filed just to delay the payment of dues to his minor daughter/O.P. no.2. 8. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad