Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82018 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37044 of 2024 Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri V.K. Patel, 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 order dated 18.06.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Ist, Jaunpur in Case no.1641 of 2020 (Anita vs. Ravi) under Section 128 Cr.P.C. 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 27.05.2017. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, his wife/O.P. no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein the court below vide order dated 17.03.2020, directed the applicant to pay 3,500/- ₹ per month to O.P. no.2. He further submitted that as the applicant defaulted in making payment of the maintenance amount, O.P. no.2 preferred an application u/s 128 Cr.P.C. for execution of order dated 17.03.2020 and the court below vide order dated 18.06.204 has issued recovery warrant against the applicant, which has been assailed in this application. He submitted that the applicant has no source of income and is a very poor person and could pay the maintenance amount only in parts and not at once. He next argued that the maintenance amount awarded by the court below 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 ₹3500/- per month for the wife i.e. O.P. no.2, which is considerably a very meagre amount in today's context for her sustenance. He submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned recovery warrant as the applicant was not paying the maintenance amount to his wife/O.P. no.2. He also added that instead of paying maintenance amount to O.P. no.2, the applicant is filing cases before different courts and the instant application is nothing but just a ploy to delay the payment. 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 of 3,500/- per month to O.P. no.2. Even ₹ though, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to pay the said amount, but no cheque or bank draft has been produced before this Court with regard to the said payment. There is nothing on record to show his bonafide except a bald statement that he is ready and willing to pay the entire outstanding amount. 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 the wife. 8. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad