Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21671 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30820 of 2024 Applicant :- Akshay Kumar Bawejaa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava 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 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 25.06.2024, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 817 of 2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby the application filed by the applicant for obtaining sample of voice of opposite party no.2 and for examination of the same with a Compact Disc (CD) has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the opposite party no. 2, who has filed aforesaid case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., making false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that the opposite party no.2 was in relationship with some other person and applicant has recorded her conversations with said person on mobile phone and a compact disc (CD) was prepared. During pendency of aforesaid case, the applicant has filed application before the Family Court with prayer that sample of the voice of opposite party No. 2 be obtained and the same be examined by Expert, with the voice contained in the compact disc (CD), so that the alleged relationship of opposite party no.2 could be proved. It was submitted that the said application has arbitrarily been rejected by the Family Court without considering the matter in correct perspective. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality of perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. In case of Vimala (K) V Veeraswamy (K) , (1991) 2 SCC 375, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that section 125 CrPC is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. The object and purpose behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. was further elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 479, wherein the Court observed as under: "15. ...While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation…". 7. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. It is meant to achieve a social purpose and provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. The proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. The proceedings under section 125 CrPC are not conducted like a criminal trial. 8. In the instant matter, it appears that as per version of applicant, he has prepared some Compact Disc (CD) of the conversation of his wife / opposite party no.2 and he has filed an application before the Family Court that sample of voice of opposite party no.2 be obtained and the same be got examined from Expert with voice contained in Compact Disc (CD). The said application has been rejected by the Family Court by a reasoned order. As stated earlier the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and in view of the facts of the matter, the direction sought by the applicant from the Family Court is wholly unwarranted. Here it may be observed that the conduct of the applicant in recording telephone calls of his wife speaks volume. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and thus, no case for invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. The application lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 9. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 RKM Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad