Allahabad High Court
Rahul Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92271
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44812 of 2024
Applicant :- Rahul Pal Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned counsel for 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 with a prayer to quash order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Agra in Case No.1028 of 2021 (Smt. Bhawna vs. Rahul) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, District-Agra.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. No.2 on 11.12.2020 and due to matrimonial discord, his wife/O.P. No.2 has left her matrimonial home and thereafter, she has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Later on, O.P. no.2 filed an application 6B seeking grant of interim maintenance on 21.01.2023 in the pending proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C., which has been allowed by the court below vide order dated 21.10.2024, directing the applicant to pay ?10,000/- per month to O.P. no.2 from the date of the application i.e. 21.01.2023 till the final disposal of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C., which has been assailed in this application. He submitted that the applicant is ready to keep his wife with him with full dignity and honour, but she is living at her parental home on her own accord without any sufficient reason. He next submitted that neither the applicant nor his family members have demanded any dowry from O.P. no.2 and the allegation against the applicant is totally false and fabricated. He submitted that the applicant works in LIC Office and his monthly income is only ?25,000/-. He submitted that the applicant lives in a rental accommodation and he is also looking after his old mother, so he could not be able to pay the interim maintenance amount to O.P. no.2, which is on the higher side. At last, he submitted that O.P. no.2 is a highly educated lady having passed U.P. T.E.T. and C-T.E.T. as well as Diploma in Computer Education, and she is already earning a handsome amount through tuition and sewing classes, which is sufficient to sustain herself. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below is liable to the set aside allowing this application.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that the Court below has awarded maintenance of pay ?10,000/- per month to O.P.No.2, which is considerably meagre amount in today's context for sustenance. He also added that instead of paying maintenance amount to O.P. no.2, the applicant is filing cases before different courts and the instant application is nothing but just a ploy to delay the payment. 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. During course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to keep his wife/O.P. No.2 with him and there is fair possibility of settlement of the dispute between the parties, if efforts are made in this regard. In the aforesaid backdrop, he requests that the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
7. When this Court asked learned counsel for the applicant as to what amount he is ready and willing to pay for appearance of O.P. no.2 before the Mediation Centre, his reply was only ?50,000/- and not more than that.
8. In the instant matter, the court below vide order dated 21.10.2024 has awarded interim maintenance of ?10,000/- per month to O.P. no.2 from the date of application i.e. 21.01.2023 till the final disposal of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The court below has further directed the applicant to pay the outstanding maintenance amount from the date of application up to the date of order i.e. from 21.01.2023 to 21.10.2024 within a period of three months in three installments. To be more precise, ?2,10,000/-(dues of 21 months) was to be paid by the applicant till January, 2025. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the said amount has been paid by the applicant to O.P. no.2. Taking the aforesaid facts into account, there is no rationale for accepting the offer of payment of ?50,000/- by the applicant for referring the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court. Even on the merits of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court.
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 :- 29.5.2025
Manish Himwan
