Imran Khan vs State Of U.P. And Another

1. Heard Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri A.Z. Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Agra in Criminal Case No.2307 of 2023 (Smt. Salma v. Imran Khan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Sadar, District Agra. 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 on 14.11.2018 but due to matrimonial discord, the wife left the matrimonial house and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein the Court concerned vide order dated 21.10.2014 the applicant has been directed to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the wife, which has been assailed by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prior to this case, opposite party no.2 had also filed cases under Section 125 Cr.P.C., under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act along with a Criminal Case for demand of dowry. He further submits that in the earlier cases the parties have arrived at a settlement in Lokadalat according to which, the applicant was to pay Rs.3,25,000/- in two installments to opposite party no.2 and the applicant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- as first installment on 20.12.2022, thereafter, opposite party no.2 withdrawn the said cases on 13.08.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant could not pay the second installment, so opposite party no.2 has again filed a case for maintenance in which the Court vide impugned order has granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to the wife. He submits that the applicant has already paid Rs.1,50,000/- to opposite party no.2 despite that she has filed second case for maintenance. Lastly, it is 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. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contends that in the earlier proceeding the parties have entered into a compromise before the Lokadalat in which the applicant was to pay Rs.3,25,000/- to the wife in two installments but the applicant has paid only Rs.1,50,000/- as first installment and did not pay the rest amount, therefore, opposite party no.2 again initiated the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which the Court below has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to the wife, which is considerably meager amount for the said purpose, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders. 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. In the case in hand, on perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the trial court had directed the applicant to pay the interim maintenance amount of Rs.3,500/ per month to the wife regularly. 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 :- 30.5.2025 S.P.