Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81996 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36976 of 2024 Applicant :- Yash Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rateesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rateesh Singh, 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 praying for quashing order dated 17.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra in Criminal Case No.779 of 2023 (Smt. Rachana and others vs. Yash Upadhyay) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Barhan, District-Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although it is alleged that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 on 09.05.2021 and out of their wedlock one female child was born, who is O.P. no.3. He further submitted that due to matrimonial discord O.P. no.2 left her matrimonial home and has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 11.04.2023. Thereafter, she further moved an application therein seeking interim maintenance on 19.10.2023, which has been decided by the court below vide order dated 17.08.2024, whereby the applicant has been directed to pay 5000/- per month to O.P. ₹ no.2/wife and ₹2,500/- per month to minor daughter/O.P. no.3. He submitted that the applicant has assailed the aforesaid order. He also submitted that the applicant wants to keep his wife and child with him but it is O.P. no.2 herself, who does not want to reside with him as she wants the applicant to live separately from his parents. He further contended that the court below while passing the impugned order has failed to consider that O.P. no.2 works as a private teacher and earns around ₹12,000/- per month and is fully capable to maintain herself. He submitted that the applicant was doing private job at Rajasthan and due to pendency of cases against him, he has been thrown out of his job, so he could not be able to pay the interim maintenance amount as directed by the court below, 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 only 7,500/- per month ( ₹ ₹5000/- per month to wife/O.P. no.2 and ₹2,500/- per month to O.P. no.3), which is considerably meagre amount in today's context. He also added that instead of paying maintenance amount to his own wife and child, the applicant has preferred the instant application, which seems just a ploy to buy some time and also delay the payment. Hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order. 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 ₹5000/- per month to O.P. no.2/wife and ₹2,500/- per month to minor daughter/O.P. no.3 and instead of paying the maintenance amount, he has chose to file the instant application. In my opinion, the applicant is just trying to buy time or to delay the payment of maintenance amount and that is why he has preferred the instant application. 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 and minor child. 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