Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88542 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37421 of 2024 Applicant :- Saheda Begam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Gaurav Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 2. This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with the request to quash the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Sant Kabir Nagar in Criminal Case No. 325/11/15 (Smt. Sahnuma vs. Mohd. Munsafi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of the present application. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that opposite party no. 2 happens to be wife of Mohd. Munsafi. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord opposite party no. 2 was thrown out of her matrimonial house. Opposite party no. 2 moved an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance on 07.07.2014. The moment his husband (Mohd. Munsafi) came to know about the maintenance case filed by his wife (opposite party no. 2), immediately on 14.08.2014, his husband executed a will deed in favour of his sisters applicant Saheda Begam, Asmeen Begam and Shahmeen Begam. This applicant under section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed on 21.09.2015, wherein it was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to opposite party no. 2. Thereafter husband of opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed recall application, which was allowed vide order dated 08.03.2017 with cost of Rs. 4000/- and order dated 20.09.2015 was set aside and application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. was restored to its original number. During the pendency of the application, husband (Mohd. Munsafi) of opposite party no. 2 died on 01.08.2021 and after the death, on the basis of will deed, the sisters got the property mutated in their name on 25.10.2022. In the meantime after the death of her husband opposite party no. 2 filed an application before the Family Court for imposing the amount of maintenance on the property of her husband late Mohd. Munsafi, which was allowed and recovery order was passed vide order dated 12.07.2022 by the family Court, from the property of late husband of opposite party no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as no order of maintenance was in existence on the date of the impugned order, which is under challenge. He further submits that the family court without applying its judicial mind passed the said impugned order which is unjust and improper and liable to be quashed. 5. Shri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned AGA submits that the after filing of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. immediately the husband of opposite party no. 2 transferred the property to his sisters and during the pendency of the application husband of opposite party died and after his death, on an application filed by the opposite party no.2, family court issued recovery warrant to recover the outstanding money which was awarded towards her maintenance, therefore, opposite party no. 2 is entitled for the payment. He further submits that the order of mutation, whereby the name of sisters of husband of opposite party no. 2 was mutated, had been challenged by the opposite party no. 2 by way of filing an appeal. He further submits that Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar vide order dated 16.08.2024 allowed the appeal and quashed the order mutating the name of sisters of husband of opposite party no. 2, in this background, impugned order passed by the Family Court is justified and there is no abuse of process of law and no interference is required by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, it is evident that the will deed was executed by the husband of opposite party no. 2 in favour of his sisters, soon after filing of the maintenance application under section 125 Cr.P.C., it seems that the will deed was executed only with the intention not to pay the maintenance to the opposite party no. 2. After the maintenance order was passed nothing was paid to the opposite party no. 2, therefore opposite party no. 2 moved an application for execution of the order of maintenance. Family Court acted upon and vide order dated 12.07.2022 allowed the application with the observation that the maintenance amount will be paid to the opposite party no. 2 from the share of property of her husband late Mohd. Munsafi. I see no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the family court allowing the application of the opposite party no. 2 and ordering for recovery of maintenance amount from the property of her late husband. 8. I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 12.07.2022, passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Sant Kabir Nagar in Criminal Case No. 325/11/15 (Smt. Sahnuma vs. Mohd. Munsafi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C 9. The instant application is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad