Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93652 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38279 of 2024 Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Chandra Bhan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri C.B. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, 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 of the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.03, Bulandshahar in Criminal Misc.Case No.816 of 2022, under Section 128 Cr.P.C. (Neelam v. Sandeep), P.S. Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar. 3. Facts of the case are that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2, on 29.04.2013 but due to matrimonial discord, the wife left the matrimonial house along with minor son, opposite party no.2 and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein vide order dated 22.03.2023 the Court concerned has awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- perm month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to minor son. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. to recall the order dated 22.03.2023 alleging that the said order is an exparte order as the same has been passed in his absence. The said recall application of the applicant was allowed by the Court concerned vide order dated 26.06.2023 by imposing fine of Rs.20,000/- on the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant has filed an Application 44-B, which too was rejected vide order dated 06.08.2024 with the direction to the applicant to pay the maintenance amount to opposite party no.2 regularly as awarded vide order dated 22.03.2023, which has been assailed by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that opposite party no.2 had left the house of the applicant without any rhyme and reason, the applicant is still ready to keep the opposite party no.2 along with minor son. He further submits that the financial status of applicant is not so sound and the maintenance amount awarded by the court below is on higher side. In the aforesaid backdrop, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contends that the Court below has awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- to minor son, which is considerably meager amount for the said purpose, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders. 6.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. 7. 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 Rs.3,000/-per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to minor son regularly. The applicant instead of paying the maintenance had filed the recall application as well as 44-B application to recall the order for maintenance and when the said applications were rejected, the applicant has filed the instant application with the sole intention to delay the payment of maintenance. 8. 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. 9. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to opposite party no.2 within a period of one month. In case, the said amount is not paid within the said period, the same shall be recovered from the applicant as arrears of land revenue and the same shall be paid to opposite party no.2. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad