Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78253 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31613 of 2024 Applicant :- Dilshad Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Imtyaz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Jitendra Singh, Prashant Drivedi Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Imtyaz Ahmad, 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 order dated 08.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi in Case no.98 of 2023 (Smt. Gulnaz Bano and others vs. Dilshad Ali) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. P.S.Mohabbatpur Painsa, District- Kaushabmi or to stay the effect and operation of aforesaid order 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 17.11.2005. However, there was matrimonial discord between them, out of which, O.P. no.2 preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 18.02.2020, which was registered as Case No.60 of 2020. During pendency of the said application, applicant and O.P. No.2 entered into compromise and decided to live together and hence, the application was decided by the court below vide order dated 16.08.2022 in terms of compromise. He next submitted that O.P. no.2 again moved another application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on 02.03.2023, which has been allowed vide order dated 08.08.2024 whereby the applicant was been directed to pay 3000/- per month ₹ to wife/O.P. no.2 and 3000/- per month each to O.P. no.3 to 4, ₹ who are minor children of the applicant. He further submitted that the applicant serves in Indian Army as 'Hawaldar' and does not get such salary that he could be able to pay the interim maintenance amount to opposite parties. He submitted that after compromise in the earlier application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. O.P. no.2 was living with the applicant and she had taken the key of applicant's house and also the money kept by him. O.P. no.2 has also ousted the applicant from his own house and filed the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with false and concocted story. He next submitted that the impugned order is an ex parte order, which is absolutely erroneous in nature and also suffers from gross illegality. He further submitted that the financial status of applicant is not so sound so 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 ₹9000/- per month for four persons i.e. wife and three children 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 9000/- per month to O.P. nos.2 to 5, ₹ 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 :- 13.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad