Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64533 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19162 of 2024 Applicant :- Gaurav Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 2. This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with the request to quash the effect and operation of order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Mainpuri, in Case No. 588 of 2021 (Smt. Himanshi @ Parul Sharma & another vs. Gaurav Sharma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. The submission of learned counsel is that the opposite party no. 2 is legally married wife. Due to matrimonial bickering opposite party no. 2 started living in her parental house along with his son. Thereafter she filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which was allowed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Mainpuri and directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. 3000/- to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2000/- to his son). The further submission of the learned counsel is that in the impugned order the learned Family Court has not passed a reasoned order, as the applicant is not in position to pay interim maintenance, therefore, the order being unreasonable, the same is 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 18.03.2024 Family Court had awarded interim maintenance, but the applicant, till date, has not paid even a single penny to the opposite party no. 2. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is justified and no interference is required by this Court. 5. It appears strange that against the order impugned, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides remedy to file criminal revision and that is also an effective and efficacious legal remedy. Despite the fact that efficacious legal remedy under the Code was available, the applicant has straightway taken recourse to get remedy under section 482 Cr.P.C. The instant application seems to have been filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings and is nothing but a ploy of not paying the maintenance, which the Court had ordered. 6. I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 24.01.2024, passed by the Principal Judge Family Court Mainpuri in Case No. 588 of 2021 (Smt. Himanshi @ Parul Sharma & another vs. Gaurav Sharma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. The instant application is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad