Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87487 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44777 of 2024 Applicant :- Shailendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Nath Tripathi,Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 908 of 2024 (Gudiya vs. Shailendra), under section 125 of Cr.P.C., Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria. 3. This is a case where opposite party no.2 happens to be the wife of the applicant and due to matrimonial discord, she had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2024 seeking maintenance from her husband. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 had filed another application for interim maintenance on 21.08.2024, in which the Family Court vide order dated 05.10.2024 accorded interim maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to O.P. no.2. The order dated 05.10.2024 has been assailed by means of this application on the ground that learned Principal Judge without considering the monitory condition of applicant, passed the impugned order in a very cursury manner, therefore the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. contends that there is no illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the order passed by the court below, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order. He further pointed out that till date the applicant has not paid the maintenance amount and has preferred the instant application before this Court with sole intention to delay or avoid the payment of maintenance amount. 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. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant has till date not paid even a single penny to his wife/O.P. no.2 towards maintenance amount, which in my view, is just a ploy to avoid or delay payment of dues to his wife. 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 maintenance amount to the wife/O.P. no.2. 8. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad