Dismissed¶14

Faim v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2025A482/32587/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application dismissed; Section 125 Cr.P.C. interim maintenance Rs. 35,000/- per month; Principal Judge Family Court Bareilly Case No. 544 of 2021; plea of unreasoned order rejected; no record-proof of full maintenance payment by husband; abuse of process to delay wife's dues; Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2875 relied on; background FIR ss. 498A & 323 IPC, 3/4 D.P. Act, 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act-2019, PS Kila Bareilly, charge-sheet filed; prior Application U/S 482 No. 4802 of 2023 referred to mediation by coordinate Bench.

What did the court decide?

The Section 482 Cr.P.C. application is pure abuse of process of law, without merit, filed merely to delay payment of maintenance dues to the wife; it is accordingly dismissed. ¶13

Faim vs State of Up and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64527

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32587 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Faim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Qaisar Kamal Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed . Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Bhanu

¶15

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Faim v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faim v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lucknow Developement Authority, Lucknow Thru. Secy. vs Ram Sagar and Others

Ramesh Chandra and 3 Others vs Tilak Chandra Bharti

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow Thru. Secy. vs Baijnath and Others

M/S Narayan Concrete Company,Lucknow Thru.Manager Beeru Prasad vs Smt. Siyawati and Others

Rajkumari vs Irfan Ali and Others

Smt. Nilam and Anr. vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Sitapur Thru. G.M. and Anr.