Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64541 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39434 of 2024 Applicant :- Gavendra Singh Alias Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, 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 order dated 07.06.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in Case No. 559 of 2023, (Smt. Suman vs. Gavendra Singh), under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Hasayan, District Hathras. Further prayed for a direction to the trial court to decide the application No. 37 of 2024, under section 126(2) Cr.P.C. in Case No. 41 of 2022, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. The submission of learned counsel is that the opposite party no. 2 is legally married wife of applicant. Due to matrimonial bickering opposite party no. 2 started living in her parental house, and thereafter she filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Family Court, Hathras, which was allowed ex-parte by the Principal Judge Family Court with a direction to pay maintenance of Rs. 10000/- to the opposite party no. 2. Further submission is that against the said order of maintenance applicant had preferred an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C. on 07.06.2024 which is still pending. In the meantime, opposite party no. 2 has filed an application under section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of maintenance amount, which was allowed by the Family Court in a very cursory without considering the fact that application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C. against the order of maintenance is pending, and issued recovery warrant against the applicant vide order dated 07.06.2024, which is illegal an unjust and therefore, the order being unreasonable and liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that it is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is wife of the applicant and due to matrimonial discord, she had filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and vide order dated 11.03.2023 Family Court had awarded interim maintenance, but when applicant did not pay the maintenance amount, opposite party no. 2 filed an application under section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of maintenance amount, which was entertained and order dated 07.06.2024 was passed by the Family Court for recovery. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is justified and no interference is required by this Court. 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 Rs. 10000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 regularly. Even after passing of the order of maintenance when opposite party no. 2 did not get even a single penny, she moved an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery, which was entertained by the Family Court and order of recovery was passed as the applicant was not paying the maintenance amount. In this background, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant against the said order of maintenance had preferred an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C. on 07.06.2024 which is still pending. Applicant instead of paying maintenance amount to his wife preferred the applicant under section 126(2) Cr.P.C., which is nothing but delaying tactics for not paying the maintenance 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 :- 25.4.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad