Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67248 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31978 of 2024 Applicant :- Sumit Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Srivastava 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-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 recovery warrant dated 23.01.2024 as well as recovery proceeding in pursuance thereof and entire proceeding of Case No. 797 of 2023 (Rajni Vs. Sumit Tyagi) under Section 128 Cr.P.C. and the exparte judgment and order dated 20.4.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar in Case No. 360 of 2021 (Smt. Rajani vs. Sumit Tyagi) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 on 23.02.2015. He next contended that out of their wedlock she gave birth to a child. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, his wife/O.P. no.2 filed a case in dowry cases on 14.12.2020 and left matrimonial house and went to her Maika after taking valuable articles like Jewelry, clothes. Thereafter opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 10.06.2021 in an ex- parte order was passed by and applicant was directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application dated 10.6.2021. Opposite party no.2 also lodged an F.I.R. on 12.7.2021 in Case Crime No. 196 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 504, 506 IPC at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Muzaffar Nagar. On 26.5.2022 the applicant filed an application under section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffar Nagar for recalling the ex parte judgment and order dated 25.11.2021. Thereafter the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar allowed the application of the applicant under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. dated 26.05.2022 vide order dated 8.8.2022 imposing cost of Rs. 20,000/- and set aside theex-parte judgment and order dated 25.11.2021 and restored the matter to its original number. Thereafter, again on 20.4.2023 an ex-parte order was passed. Thereafter the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. on 13.06.2023 for getting the payment of her maintenance amount of total Rs. 1,18,500/ for the period from 10.6.2021 to 1.6.2023 to be provided to the applicant. On 23.1.2024 a recovery/arrest warrant has been issued against the applicant fixing next dated 17.2.2024. 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 Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffar Nagar issued recovery/arrest warrant against the applicant and the same is just and proper, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders. 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 Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffar Nagar issued a recovery/arrest warrant against the applicant. 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 :- 28.4.2025/Kumar Manish Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad