Faim vs State Of U.P. And Another

1. Heard Shri Qaisar Kamal Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

2. This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with the request to quash the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Bareilly in Case No. 544 of 2021 (Ujma @ Ajhra vs. Faim), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kila, District Bareilly.

3. The submission of learned counsel is that the opposite party no. 2 is legally married wife and her marriage was solemnized on 07.03.2020 with applicant. 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, Bareilly without considering the written statement submitted by the applicant and directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- to the opposite party no. 2. Thereafter opposite party had filed an F.I.R. under section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, and section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act-2019, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly, in which police after investigation filed charge-sheet and applicant had challenged the aforementioned criminal proceedings by way of filing Application U/S 482 No. 4802 of 2023. The coordinate Bench had entertained the matter and referred the matter for mediation between the parties as the matter relates to matrimonial dispute. Further submission is that applicant is regularly paying the maintenance amount. The further submission of the learned counsel is that in the impugned order the learned Family Court has not passed a reasoned order, therefore, the order being unreasonable, the same is liable to be quashed.

4. 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 01.06.2024 Family Court had awarded interim maintenance, but the applicant, is not paying full amount of maintenance 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.

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 Rs. 35000/- per month to opposite party no. 2. Even after passing of the order of maintenance when opposite party no. 2 is not getting the full amount of maintenance. In this background, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is paying the maintenance amount regularly, but from perusal of record no where it mentioned that applicant is paying full maintenance amount to his wife. There is nothing on record to show his bonafide except a bald statement that he is paying the full maintenance 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 :- 23.4.2025

Bhanu