Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89956 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15882 of 2025 Applicant :- Gajendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Jadaun Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been preferred against order dated 06.02.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, in application under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., in Case No.38 of 2023 (Smt. Gayatri Vs. Gajendra and Others), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Raya, District- Mathura, pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, whereby the Family Court has observed that the application filed by applicant under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. shall be decided after evidence of the parties. 3. It appears from record that opposite party no.2 is wife of applicant and that opposite party nos.3 & 4 are their minor children. The opposite party nos.2 to 4 have filed the aforesaid case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In those proceedings, the applicant has filed an application under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., alleging that opposite party no.2 was residing separately without sufficient reason and thus the case filed by opposite party nos.2 to 4 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. may be dismissed. On that application, the Family Court has passed order observing that the said application shall be decided after evidence of the parties. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order is against law and thus liable to be set aside. No reasoned order has been passed on the application filed by applicant. The opposite party no.2 is residing separately without just and sufficient reasons and thus the case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by opposite party nos.2 to 4 was liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. In view of aforesaid facts, it is clear that the application filed by applicant under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., stating that opposite party no.2 is residing separately without sufficient reasons, has not been decided and learned Family Court has observed that said application will be decided after evidence of the parties. Whether the opposite party no.2 was residing separately without sufficient reasons or not, it is a question of fact and that can only be decided on the basis of evidence of the parties. In view of these facts and circumstances, it can not be said that impugned order is suffering from any material illegality or perversity. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice, so as to require any interference by this Court by invoking extraordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad