Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110230 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20353 of 2015 Applicant :- Ram Milan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Rai,Ashok Kumar Rai,Ravindra Nath Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri R.N. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Neelkant 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 praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 03.07.2015 and 09.07.2015 passed in Case No.302/11/2014 (Janak Lali v. Ram Milan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Basti. 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 in the year 1990 but due to matrimonial discord, the wife left the matrimonial house and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 05.05.2000. Since the applicant was not appearing in the Court, the Court had imposed fine of Rs.1500/-, closed the evidence and posted the matter for hearing on 09.07.2015. The applicant instead of paying the fine filed an application to recall the order dated 03.07.2015, which was rejected by the Court vide order dated 09.07.2015 and also imposed fine of Rs.2000/- for seeking adjournment. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the evidence was closed exparte without hearing the applicant, hence, the evidence may be reopened and an opportunity may be granted to the applicant to produce his witnesses. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the application and contends that the applicant is only trying to delay the trial and no amount has been paid to the wife till date. They further contends that because of pendency of this case the wife is having great difficulty in making ends meat. They further submits that the order sheet clearly shows that number of opportunities were granted to the applicant but the applicant did not appear and delayed the trial. 6. 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. 7. In the case in hand, it is apparent that the applicant is using all his tactics to delay the proceedings though the statement has been made in the Court that the maintenance was paid but there is nothing on record to show that the maintenance was ever paid. 8. 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. 9. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. Since the maintenance case is pending since last 25 years, the trial court is directed to decide the same within three months without granting any unnecessary adjournment. 11. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Court concerned. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad