Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86375 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 493 of 2017 Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Mishra,Ravindra Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is not present even in the revised call. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing order dated 02.12.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Baghpat in Case No. 37 of 2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Baraut, District Paghpat or to stay the effect and operation of aforesaid order 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 19.04.2002. He next contended that wife of applicant lived with him till 2007 and out of their wedlock she gave birth to a male child but after sometime he died. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, his wife/O.P. no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein vide order dated 02.12.2016, the applicant has been directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to wife/O.P. no.2 from the date of application. He further submitted that the applicant regularly paying maintenance amount to opposite party no. 2. He further submitted that the maintenance amount awarded by the court below is on 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 Rs.8,000/- per month to O.P. no. 2 / wife, which is considerably meagre amount for the said purpose, 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 Rs,8,000/- per month to O.P. nos.2 regularly. Even though, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is depositing the maintenance amount. 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 :- 21.5.2025 Manoj Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad