Sanjay Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

1. Heard Sri Niwash Yadav, 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 of the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau in Case No. 695 of 2019 (Sanjay Singh vs. Urmila Singh and other) proceeding under Section 126 of Criminal Procedure Code Police Station Madhuban, District Mau as well as award of Rs. 3000/- per month interim maintenance in favour of opposite party no. 2 and 3.

3. The submission of learned counsel is that the opposite party no. 2 and 3 have filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau on 07.03.2009, which was ex-parte allowed vide order dated 28.04.2011 with a direction to pay maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1000/- to her son (amounting Rs. 1500+1000/- =Rs. 2500/-). Even after passing of the maintenance order, when the same was not paid, opposite parties had filed Execution Case being Execution Case No. 160 of 2017.

4. The ex-parte order dated 28.04.2011 passed on maintenance application was assailed by the applicant by way of filing an application under section 126 Cr.P.C. on 28.06.2019, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau, for setting aside the ex-parte order. Objection was filed by the opposite party no. 2 and 3 on 16.11.2019. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau vide order dated 30.04.2024 allowed the application filed under section 126 Cr.P.C. with cost of Rs. 5000/- and set aside the order dated 28.04.2011 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, and remanded the matter back for fresh order, with a condition in case there occurs default in payment of fine this order stands vacated automatically and also directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3000/- to her wife as interim maintenance.

5. Further submission is that earlier opposite party no. 2 had also filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. on 11.09.1996 against one Ramanand Singh (Urmila Singh vs. Ramanand Singh) for maintenance, which was decided on 13.07.1999 by the Judicial Magistrate with a direction to Ramanand Singh to pay Rs. 500/- as maintenance to her. Further submission is that opposite party no. 2 can not claim maintenance from two person, therefore the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau, being unreasonable and 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 learned Special CJM, Mau while entertaining the application passed ex-parte order dated 28.04.2011, which was assailed by the applicant by way of filing an application under section 126 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order of maintenance, which was decided by the Family Court with cost alongwith condition and remanded the matter back for passing fresh order on maintenance applicant and also directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3000/- as interim 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 orders, it transpires that opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of applicant and their marriage was solemnized on 24.06.2004, one child was born from their wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord she left her matrimonial house and started living in her parental house. Opposite party no. 2 filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, which was ex-parte allowed vide order dated 28.04.2011 with a direction to pay maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1000/- to her son (amounting Rs. 1500+1000/- =Rs. 2500/-). Aggrieved with the ex-parte order applicant moved an application to recall the order under section 126 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau, vide order dated 30.04.2024 with cost of Rs. 5000/- and set aside the order dated 28.04.2011 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, and remanded the matter back for fresh order, with a condition in case there occurs default in payment of fine this order stands vacated automatically and also directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3000/- to her wife as interim maintenance till finalization of application under section 125 Cr.P.C. All the grounds raised by the applicant can be raised at the time of final adjudication of the application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C.. However, there is nothing on record to show his bonafide except the statement that in compliance of the order dated 30.04.2024 applicant has deposited Rs. 5000/- on 20.05.2024 till date.

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 :- 6.5.2025

Bhanu