Dismissed

Virendra Singh Baghel v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 May 2025A482/34838/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a Family Court order enhancing maintenance. The Court held that the remedy for aggrieved parties lies in approaching the lower court, rendering the present application an abuse of process.

What the court decided

AI extract

Virendra Singh Baghel Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85269

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34838 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Virendra Singh Baghel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aryan Yadav, Azad Khan, Naresh Singh Tomar

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash impugned order dated 23.08.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Agra in Criminal Misc. Case no.1288 of 2023 (Smt. Rajani Baghel vs. Virendra Singh Baghel) under Section 127 Cr.P.C., P.S.Tajganj, District-Agra or to stay the effect and operation of aforesaid orders during pendency of the present application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 on 20.02.1995. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, his wife/O.P. no.2 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in 2003 wherein the court below directed the applicant to pay 1500/- per month to O.P.₹ no.2. He further submitted that thereafter on an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. the court below has vide order dated 23.08.2024 has increased the maintenance amount from 1500/- per month to₹ ₹8000/- per month, which has been assailed in this application. He next submitted that the applicant is a Constable in U.P. Police and the maintenance amount is being deducted from his salary account. He next submitted that applicant is already depositing 20,000/-₹ per month towards loan amount and additional payment of ₹8000/- per month towards maintenance amount, would be an uphill task for his. He further submitted that O.P. no.2 is living along with some other person, whom she has made her nominee and as such her application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable by virtue of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., which the court below has failed to consider while passing the impugned order. In the aforesaid backdrop, he submitted that the impugned order is liable

¶10

to be set aside.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contends that the Court below vide impugned order has increased the maintenance of amount from 1500/- per month to₹ ₹8000/- per month for the wife i.e. O.P. no.2, which is considerably meagre amount in today's context for her sustenance. Hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 ₹8000/- per month to O.P. no.2. If the applicant is aggrieved with the said order, the appropriate remedy available to the applicant is to move an appropriate application before the concerned court below.

¶14

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. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Manish Himwan

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virendra Singh Baghel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Virendra Singh Baghel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases