Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84215 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31112 of 2024 Applicant :- Rakesh Nagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chhaya Gupta,Sujeet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.476 of 2021 (Smt. Sarita and others vs. Rakesh Nagar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar or to stay the effect and operation of aforesaid order during pendency of the present application. 3. The applicant was married to opposite party no.2 on 02.03.2002 and out of this wedlock, a daughter and two son were born. All are minor. Because of the matrimonial discord, opposite party no.2 has been thrown out of matrimonial house. Being aggrieved thereby, she moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. somewhere in 2021 for interim maintenance, in which there was mediation proceedings between them, but the same could not be finalized. Earlier also, on 02.06.2022, opposite party no.2 moved an application for interim maintenance. The trial court by order dated 01.10.2022 allowed the application of opposite party no.2 directing the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to three persons (the wife, minor son and minor daughter). Instead of paying the maintenance, the applicant filed an application under Section 125(5) of Cr.P.C. and the same was rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar on 06.08.2024. The same has been assailed by means of the instant application. 4. The counsel for the applicants submits 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. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contends that the Court below has awarded maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to three persons (the wife, minor son and daughter of the applicant), which is considerably meagre amount for the said purpose, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders. 6. 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. 7. 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.12,000/- per month to three persons (the wife, minor son and daughter of the applicant), but the applicant is not paying the interim maintenance awarded by the trial court and has been filing application only to delay the proceedings. 8. 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. 9. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 CS/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad