Devanand Chaurasiya vs State Of U.P. And Another

2. This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with the request to quash the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, No. 01, Varanasi in Case No. 1005 of 2022 (Naina Chaurasiya vs. Devanand chaurasiya @ Dabbu), under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi.

3. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2024 had referred the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court for amicably settlement of the dispute between the parties.

4. In compliance thereof, the Registrar, AHCMCC has submitted report dated 15.05.2024, which shows that "Mediation Completed but no agreement" arrived at between the parties.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the opposite party no. 2 is legally married wife and due to matrimonial bickering opposite party no. 2 started living in her parental house. Thereafter she filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which was allowed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Varanasi and directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- to his wife, which is excessive in nature. The further submission of the learned counsel is that the Family Court has not passed a reasoned order, therefore, the order being unreasonable, the same is liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that it is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is wife of the applicant and due to matrimonial discord, she had filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and vide order dated 02.08.2023 Family Court had awarded interim maintenance, but the applicant, till date, has not paid even a single penny to the opposite party no. 2. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is justified and no interference is required by this Court.

7. 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.

8. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record, 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 opposite party no. 2 regularly. Applicant with the intention no to pay the maintenance amount to his deserted wife initiated the instant proceeding. There is nothing on record to show his bonafide that he is ready and willing to pay the entire outstanding amount.

9. 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.

10. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.5.2025

Bhanu