Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81655 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42474 of 2024 Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Giri,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri A.K. Giri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, 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 with a prayer to quash order dated 30.06.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court no.5, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case no.525 of 2021 (Neelu Chaudhary vs. Anuj) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or to stay the effect and operation of aforesaid orders during pendency of the present application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 on 13.03.2008 and out of their wedlock two children were born. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, his wife/O.P. no.2 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein the court below vide order dated 30.06.2023, directed the applicant to pay 10,000/- per ₹ month to O.P. no.2. He further submitted that the applicant is a Constable in U.P. Police and bearing the expenses of O.P. no.2 as well as school fees of his children, which seems to be an uphill task. He further submitted that the applicant is also looking after his old widow mother and also purchased land of 100 sq. yard in the name of his wife/O.P. no.2. He submitted that the applicant already has so much liability that he would not be able to 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 ₹10,000/- per month for the wife i.e. O.P. no.2, which is considerably meagre amount in today's context for her sustenance. He also added that instead of paying maintenance amount to O.P. no.2, the applicant is filing cases before different courts and the instant application is nothing but just a ploy to delay the payment. 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 the trial court had directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of 10,000/- per month to O.P. no.2. 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 :- 16.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad