Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90768 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5101 of 2017 Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Punya Sheel Pandey 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 by the applicant praying for quashing of the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by Family Court, Agra in Criminal Case No. 145 of 2016 (Archana vs. Pradeep) under section 125(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Shahganj, District Agra pending in the Court of judge Family Court, Agra. 3. The submission of learned counsel is that the opposite party no. 2 is legally married wife of applicant and their marriage was solemnized on 08.02.1996. Due to matrimonial bickering opposite party no. 2 started living in her parental house, and thereafter she filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Family Court Agra on 08.11.2013 which was allowed by the Family Court Agra with a direction to pay maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party no. 2 from the date of application and also directed to adjust the said amount of maintenance if opposite party no. 2 is getting maintenance in any other case. Further submission is that opposite party no. 2 had earlier filed a F.I.R. against the applicant under section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act in Police Station Mahila Thana, District Agra, in which after investigation charge-sheet was filed, the same was assailed by the applicant by way of application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 9758 of 2005, in which while entertaining the matter the coordinate Bench vide order dated 25.07.2005 ordered the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the opposite party no. 2, which the applicant is regularly paying. Further submission is that there was outstanding maintenance amount for a period from 08.11.2013 to 08.09.2016, which was not paid by the applicant, therefore opposite party no. 2 filed an application for recovery of the same and the Family Court vide order dated 01.02.2017 issued recovery warrant. Further submission is that Family Court without considering the evidence on record, illegally and arbitrarily issued recovery warrant which is unreasonable and liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that it is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is wife of the applicant and due to matrimonial discord, she had filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and vide order dated 26.05.2016 Family Court had awarded interim maintenance, but when applicant did not pay the maintenance amount, opposite party no. 2 filed an application under section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of maintenance amount, which was entertained and order dated 01.02.2017 was passed by the Family Court for recovery. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is justified and no interference is required by this Court. 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. 3000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 regularly from the date of application. Even after passing of the order of maintenance, there was outstanding maintenance amount for a period from 08.11.2013 to 08.09.2016 for which opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery, which was entertained by the Family Court and order of recovery was passed. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant is ready and willing to pay the outstanding maintenance amount for the period mentioned above. 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 there is no illegality of perversity in the order passed by the Family Court and 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 :- 27.5.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad