Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63758 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30926 of 2024 Applicant :- Satish Chandra Sahu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Satsangi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.D. Pandey, 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 impugned order dated 09.07.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Cr. Misc. Case no.237 of 2024 (Satish Chandra Sahu vs. Smt. Babita Sahu and another) under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. P.S.Ujhai, District-Budaun or to stay the effect and operation of aforesaid orders 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 10.12.2011. He next contended that the applicant was working in Indian Army and when he denied to take his wife, O.P. no.2 with him to his place of posting, she left her matrimonial home. Thereafter, O.P. no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed vide order dated 01.03.2017 whereby the applicant was been directed to pay 6000/- per month to wife/O.P. no.2 and O.P. no.3/minor son. ₹ He further submitted that the applicant paid the said amount till 2021 but due to some financial crisis he could not pay the same to O.P. no.2. Thereafter, O.P. no.2 filed an application for enhancement u/s 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, which was allowed vide order dated 25.01.2024 ex parte wherein the applicant has been directed to pay ₹7000/- per month to wife/O.P. no.2 in place of ₹4000/- per month and ₹4000/- per month to son/O.P. no.3 in place of ₹2000/- per month. He next submitted that the applicant moved an application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. with prayer to recall the order dated 25.01.2024, which has been allowed but a direction has been given to the applicant to deposit 50% of the arrear before the court below or pay the same to the opposite parties within one month, which has been assailed in this application. He next contended that the impugned order is absolutely erroneous in nature and suffers from gross illegality. He further submitted that while passing the impugned order the court below has not adjusted the amount already paid by the applicant. He further submitted that the financial status of applicant is not so sound and 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 ₹11,000/- per month for two persons i.e. wife and son of the applicant, which is considerably meagre amount for the said purpose, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order. 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 11000/- per month to O.P. nos.2 and 3, ₹ regularly. Even though, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to pay the said amount, but no cheque or bank draft has been produced before this Court with regard to the said payment. 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 :- 25.4.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad