Dismissed¶17

Rajendra Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 May 2025A482/44740/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:87490, Prashant Kumar J, Order Date 22.5.2025; Application U/S 482 No. - 44740 of 2024 (Rajendra Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another); quashing sought of Family Court Jhansi order dated 25.07.2024 in Maintenance Case no.974 of 2023 (Smt. Sangam Devi vs. Rajendra Kumar) granting Rs.4000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; applicant unpaid, serial filings called a ploy; Section 125 sustenance principle invoked via Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2875; application dismissed as pure abuse of process; advocates: Yogendra Mishra (applicant), G.A./Jyoti Kumar Singh A.G.A. (State).

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer to quash the Family Court maintenance order dated 25.07.2024 was refused and the Section 482 application was dismissed. ¶17

Rajendra Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer to quash the Family Court maintenance order dated 25.07.2024 was refused and the Section 482 application was dismissed.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of the Family Court order dated 25.07.2024 (awarding Rs.4000 per month maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.) should be allowed on the applicant's claim that the awarded amount is on the higher side given his financial status. +1 more

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The applicant had till date not paid a single penny towards maintenance, and his filing of various cases before different courts was, in the Court's view, merely a ploy to avoid or delay payment of dues to his wife.

¶15

Key takeaways

Filing of the Section 482 application was nothing but pure abuse of process of law; the application lacked merit as it had been filed solely to delay payment of the maintenance amount to the wife, and it was therefore dismissed.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 87), Prashant Kumar, J.; Order Date 22.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:87490. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Application U/S 482 No. - 44740 of 2024) by Rajendra Kumar Prajapati seeking quashing of the order dated 25.07.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Maintenance Case no.974 of 2023 (Smt. Sangam Devi vs. Rajendra Kumar), whereby — following the wife's application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed on 18.09.2023 after she was thrown out of the matrimonial home amid discord — he was directed to pay Rs.4000 per month. The applicant claimed the award was excessive given his financial status, but the record showed he had not paid a single penny and was filing cases before different courts. Relying on the Supreme Court's dictum in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2875 (that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived so a woman thrown out of the matrimonial house can sustain herself and lead a life similar to what she would have led in her husband's house), the Court held the application to be pure abuse of process, filed only to delay maintenance payment, and dismissed it.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87490

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44740 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

None appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this application.

¶8

Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of the State respondents.

¶9

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing impugned order dated 25.07.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, in Maintenance Case no.974 of 2023 (Smt. Sangam Devi vs. Rajendra Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. related to police Station Gursarai, District Jhansi during pendency of the present application.

¶10

I have perused the record.

¶11

This is a case where opposite party no. 2 happens to be wife of applicant and their marriage was solemnized with O.P. no.2 on 08.05.2021. Due to matrimonial discord, opposite party no. 2 was thrown out of the house, thereafter his wife/O.P. no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 18.09.2023 wherein Family Court vide order dated 25.07.2024, directed the applicant to pay Rs.4000/per month to his wife opposite party no. 2. It is claimed that the financial status of applicant is not so sound and the maintenance amount awarded by the court below is on higher side. Impugned order dated 25.07.2024 has been assailed by means of this application.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. contends that there is no illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the order passed by the court below, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the

¶13

impugned order. He further pointed out that till date the applicant has not paid the maintenance amount and has preferred the instant application before this Court with sole intention to delay or avoid the payment of maintenance amount.

¶14

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.

¶15

On perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant has till date not paid a single penny to his wife/O.P. no.2 towards maintenance amount and has been filing various cases before different courts, which in my view, is just a ploy to avoid or delay payment of dues to his wife.

¶16

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 maintenance amount to the wife/O.P. no.2.

¶17

The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Bhanu

¶19

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

Rajendra Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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