Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63746 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39366 of 2024 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Tomar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jata Shankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Jata Shankar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.D. Pandey, 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 impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor in Crl. Misc. Case no.770 of 2017 (Smt. Babli and another vs. Sanjeev Kumar) under Section 127 Cr.P.C. P.S.Shahar, District- Bijnor or to stay the effect and operation of aforesaid order during pendency of the present application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant got married to O.P. no.2 on 26.02.2001. However, they got separated due to matrimonial discord in the year 2002. He submitted that wife of applicant (O.P. no.2) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 16.01.2012, which was registered as Crl. Misc. Case No.942 of 2013, wherein vide order dated 08.09.2016, the applicant was directed to pay 1500/- per month ( 1000/- to ₹ ₹ wife/O.P. no.2 and 500/- to son/O.P. no.3). He further submitted ₹ that O.P. no.2 preferred an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. on 12.12.2017 seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, which has been allowed vide order dated 18.09.2024 wherein the applicant has been directed to pay ₹3000/- per month to wife/O.P. no.2 in place of ₹1000/- per month and ₹4000/- per month to son/O.P. no.3 in place of ₹500/- per month. He next submitted that the applicant is a farmer and doing agricultural work and his financial status is not so sound that he could pay the maintenance amount awarded 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 ₹5500/- per month for two persons i.e. wife and son of the applicant, which is considerably meagre amount for the said purpose, 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 after enhancement the trial court had directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of 7000/- per month ₹ (₹3000/- per month to O.P. no.2/wife and ₹4000/- per month to O.P. no.3/son), regularly. 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 :- 25.4.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad