Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81674 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41651 of 2024 Applicant :- Ashu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Gaur,Shailendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri A.K. Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing order dated 30.10.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj in Criminal Misc. Case No.697 of 2020 (Smt. Seema and others vs. Ashu) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Amanpur, District-Kasganj. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although it is alleged that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 on 26.07.2017 and out of their wedlock two children were born to them but the actual fact is that neither O.P. no.2 is his wife nor O.P. nos.3 and 4 are children of the applicant. He next submitted that O.P. No.2 is a fraud lady and there is no credible evidence on record to establish that O.P. nos.3 and 4 are his children. He further submitted that O.P. no.2 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2020, wherein the court below vide order dated 30.10.2024, directed the applicant to pay 1000/- ₹ per month each to O.P. nos.3 and 4 till they attain the age of majority, who are said to be minor children of the applicant. 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 1,000/- per month each for O.P. ₹ nos.3 and 4, which is considerably meagre amount in today's context. He also added that instead of paying maintenance amount to his own children, the applicant has preferred the instant application, which seems just a ploy to buy some time and also delay the payment. Hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order. 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 1,000/- per ₹ month each to O.P. nos.3 and 4, who are said to be minor children of the applicant. Instead of paying the maintenance amount, he has chose to file the instant application wherein he has taken a plea that neither O.P. no.2 is his wife nor O.P. nos.3 and 4 are his children. It is also evident that the court below has not awarded any maintenance amount to the wife/O.P. no.2. In my opinion, if the applicant is anyhow aggrieved with the impugned order he should have moved an appropriate application before the concerned court below taking aforesaid plea as the same could not be adjudicated upon by this Court while exercising the powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. and it can only be adjudicated by the trial court after going through the evidence available on record. Further, I am also of the view that the applicant is just trying to buy time or to delay the payment of maintenance amount and that is why he has preferred the instant application taking aforesaid plea. Such conduct of the applicant is highly deplorable and there is need of the hour to impose cost upon the applicant. 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 minor children. 8. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, cost of ₹20,000/- is imposed upon the applicant, which shall be given to O.P. nos.3 and 4 within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the recovery of the aforesaid amount, shall be made as arrears of land revenue. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad