Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64544 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40455 of 2024 Applicant :- Anit Kumar Saini Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Awanish Verma,Ravi Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Sahu, 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 14.10.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 1071 of 2023, under section 128 Cr.P.C. of Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. The submission of learned counsel is that the opposite party no. 2 is legally married wife of applicant and from their wedlock one male child was born. Due to matrimonial bickering opposite party no. 2 started living in her parental house alongwith her son, and thereafter she filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Family Court on 29.11.2018 which was allowed by the Principal Judge Family Court Kanpur Nagar with a direction to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1500/- to his son from the date of application till the date of order and Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 3000/- to opposite party no. 3 from the date of order as maintenance. He further submits that applicant had challenged the said order in revision petition before this Court and this Court while entertaining the criminal revision referred the matter to mediation centre. He further submits that due to financial crisis applicant could not deposit the mediation fee due to which mediation failed. He further submits that in the meantime on an application filed under section 128 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no. 2, Family Court had passed the order dated 14.10.2024 for recovery, 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 29.11.2018 Family Court had awarded interim maintenance, but when applicant did not pay the maintenance amount, opposite party no. 2 filed an application under section 128 Cr.P.C. for recovery of maintenance amount, which was entertained and order dated 14.10.2024 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 pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1500/- to his son from the date of application till the date of order and Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 3000/- to opposite party no. 3 from the date of order as maintenance. 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 128 Cr.P.C. for recovery, which was entertained by the Family Court and order of recovery was passed as the applicant had not paid the maintenance amount till date. In this background, 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 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad