Allahabad High Court
Rohit Tripathi Alias Bhanu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70660
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36500 of 2024
Applicant :- Rohit Tripathi Alias Bhanu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Padmaker Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash order dated 06.05.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.559 of 2023 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar werheby interim maintenance application has been allowed and applicant has been directed to pay ?20,000/- per month interim maintenance from the date of order.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with mother of O.P. no.2 (son of applicant) on 07.12.2012. He next contended that due to matrimonial discord wife of the applicant left her matrimonial home on 22.05.2022. Thereafter, O.P. no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 14.03.2023 through her mother/natural guardian (wife of applicant), and during pendency of the application another application for interim maintenance on 07.02.2024. The said application was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 whereby applicant was directed to pay ?20,000/- per month to O.P. no.2, which has been assailed by means of present application. He submitted that he is ready and willing to keep his child with him. He next contended that the impugned order is absolutely erroneous in nature and suffers from gross illegality. 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 Court below has awarded maintenance of ?20,000/- per month to O.P. no.2/son 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 ?20,000/- per month to O.P. no.2, per month to O.P. no.2, who is son of the applicant. Even though, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to keep his son with him, but there is nothing on record to show his bonafide except a bald statement that he is ready and willing to keep his son.
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 interim maintenance to O.P. no.2.
8. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.5.2025
Manish Himwan
