Sushma Singh v. Pradeep Kumar Singh) under Section

1. Heard Sri W.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the 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 praying for quashing impugned order dated 05.07.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Varanasi in Case no.275 of 2018 (Sushma Singh vs. Pradeep Kumar Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or to stay the effect and operation of aforesaid orders during pendency of the present application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 on 15.02.2001. He next contended that out of their wedlock O.P. no.2 gave birth to two children (son and daughter). Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, wife of applicant/O.P. no.2 started living separately at her parental home from 04.08.2007 and she took jewellery and cash with her. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed a complaint case against O.P. no.2 and others u/s 323, 452, 504, 506, 379, 406 IPC wherein summoning order was passed on 04.08.2018. Thereafter, O.P. no.2 and others preferred Application u/s 482 No.402 of 2019 before this Court, wherein the matter was referred to Mediation Centre and further proceedings of the case was stayed vide order dated 08.01.2019. He next submitted that as the applicant wanted to keep O.P. no.2 with him, so he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Case No.757 of 2013, however, the said case was dismissed as withdrawn as O.P. no.2 did not turn up despite service of notice upon her. Thereafter, the applicant filed a suit u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act being Case No.1192 of 2014 before Family Court, Kanpur and in that matter too, O.P. no.2 did not appear despite sufficient notice. He further submitted that as a counter blast to aforesaid proceedings, O.P. no.2 file a case u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act being Case no.87 of 2014 before C.J.M. Varanasi, even though she was living at her parental home on her own will. He further submitted that in the said case, the court below has passed order on 18.11.2015 whereby the applicant was directed to pay ₹2000/- per month to his wife/O.P. no.2 and ₹1000/- per month each to both children as interim maintenance from the date of order upto their attaining the age of majority. He next submitted that the applicant has paid the said amount till 22.03.2022. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application in the said case on 09.04.2021 seeking exemption from liability of paying maintenance to his daughter as she attained the age of majority. However, after considering the objection filed by O.P. no.2, vide order dated 13.05.2022, the court below has rejected the said application and directed the applicant to pay lumpsum amount of ₹1,00,000/- at once for admission of his daughter, who was declared successful in NIIT Exam, and further increased her maintenance amount from ₹1000/- per month to ₹5000/- per month. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicant preferred an appeal being Appeal no.95 of 2022 before Sessions Judge, Varanasi, which was allowed vide order dated 22.11.2022 and order dated 13.05.2022 was set aside. He next contended that during this period O.P. no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 05.06.2018 being Case No.275 of 2018 along with an application for interim maintenance. In the said case, vide order dated 05.07.2024 the court below has awarded 8000/- per month ( 2000/- to wife/O.P. no.2 and 3000/- per month each to minor ₹ ₹ son and daughter of the applicant), which has been impugned in this application. He submitted that the applicant is challenging the said order on the ground that the court below while passing the impugned order has not considered the objection filed by the applicant wherein he has categorically pointed out that his wife is a practising lawyer, who herself earns handsome amount, whereas the applicant is an employed person. He submitted that the court below also did not consider the fact that the daughter of applicant has attained the age of majority and also ignored the submission of the applicant that he was ready and willing to keep his wife/O.P. no.2 and children with him but O.P. no.2 herself wants to live separately. He further submitted that the financial status of applicant is not so sound that he could pay the maintenance amount awarded by the court below, which is on the higher side. In the aforesaid backdrop, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ₹

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contends that the Court below has awarded maintenance of 8000/- per month for three people (i.e. wife, minor son and ₹ daughter of the applicant), which is considerably meagre amount for the said purpose, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders.

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. 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 8000/- per month to O.P. no.2 and her children, regularly and also directed that the amount shall be adjusted towards maintenance amount given in any other case. Apart from this, even though, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to keep his wife and children along with him, but his conduct itself speaks volume about him. As per his own case, the financial status of the applicant is not good, but yet he has filed the instant application and also other cases before the court below just to delay the payment of outstanding amount to his wife and children. There is nothing on record to show his bonafide except a bald statement that he is ready and willing to keep his wife and children with him. In my view, if the applicant is aggrieved with the order passed by court below in the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C., he may approach the revisional court for appropriate relief.

7. 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 and children.

8. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Manish Himwan

1. Heard Sri W.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the 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 praying for quashing impugned order dated 05.07.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Varanasi in Case no.275 of 2018 (Sushma Singh vs. Pradeep Kumar Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or to stay the effect and operation of aforesaid orders during pendency of the present application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 on 15.02.2001. He next contended that out of their wedlock O.P. no.2 gave birth to two children (son and daughter). Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, wife of applicant/O.P. no.2 started living separately at her parental home from 04.08.2007 and she took jewellery and cash with her. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed a complaint case against O.P. no.2 and others u/s 323, 452, 504, 506, 379, 406 IPC wherein summoning order was passed on 04.08.2018. Thereafter, O.P. no.2 and others preferred Application u/s 482 No.402 of 2019 before this Court, wherein the matter was referred to Mediation Centre and further proceedings of the case was stayed vide order dated 08.01.2019. He next submitted that as the applicant wanted to keep O.P. no.2 with him, so he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Case No.757 of 2013, however, the said case was dismissed as withdrawn as O.P. no.2 did not turn up despite service of notice upon her. Thereafter, the applicant filed a suit u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act being Case No.1192 of 2014 before Family Court, Kanpur and in that matter too, O.P. no.2 did not appear despite sufficient notice. He further submitted that as a counter blast to aforesaid proceedings, O.P. no.2 file a case u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act being Case no.87 of 2014 before C.J.M. Varanasi, even though she was living at her parental home on her own will. He further submitted that in the said case, the court below has passed order on 18.11.2015 whereby the applicant was directed to pay ₹2000/- per month to his wife/O.P. no.2 and ₹1000/- per month each to both children as interim maintenance from the date of order upto their attaining the age of majority. He next submitted that the applicant has paid the said amount till 22.03.2022. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application in the said case on 09.04.2021 seeking exemption from liability of paying maintenance to his daughter as she attained the age of majority. However, after considering the objection filed by O.P. no.2, vide order dated 13.05.2022, the court below has rejected the said application and directed the applicant to pay lumpsum amount of ₹1,00,000/- at once for admission of his daughter, who was declared successful in NIIT Exam, and further increased her maintenance amount from ₹1000/- per month to ₹5000/- per month. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicant preferred an appeal being Appeal no.95 of 2022 before Sessions Judge, Varanasi, which was allowed vide order dated 22.11.2022 and order dated 13.05.2022 was set aside. He next contended that during this period O.P. no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 05.06.2018 being Case No.275 of 2018 along with an application for interim maintenance. In the said case, vide order dated 05.07.2024 the court below has awarded 8000/- per month ( 2000/- to wife/O.P. no.2 and 3000/- per month each to minor ₹ ₹ son and daughter of the applicant), which has been impugned in this application. He submitted that the applicant is challenging the said order on the ground that the court below while passing the impugned order has not considered the objection filed by the applicant wherein he has categorically pointed out that his wife is a practising lawyer, who herself earns handsome amount, whereas the applicant is an employed person. He submitted that the court below also did not consider the fact that the daughter of applicant has attained the age of majority and also ignored the submission of the applicant that he was ready and willing to keep his wife/O.P. no.2 and children with him but O.P. no.2 herself wants to live separately. He further submitted that the financial status of applicant is not so sound that he could pay the maintenance amount awarded by the court below, which is on the higher side. In the aforesaid backdrop, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ₹

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contends that the Court below has awarded maintenance of 8000/- per month for three people (i.e. wife, minor son and ₹ daughter of the applicant), which is considerably meagre amount for the said purpose, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders.

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. 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 8000/- per month to O.P. no.2 and her children, regularly and also directed that the amount shall be adjusted towards maintenance amount given in any other case. Apart from this, even though, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to keep his wife and children along with him, but his conduct itself speaks volume about him. As per his own case, the financial status of the applicant is not good, but yet he has filed the instant application and also other cases before the court below just to delay the payment of outstanding amount to his wife and children. There is nothing on record to show his bonafide except a bald statement that he is ready and willing to keep his wife and children with him. In my view, if the applicant is aggrieved with the order passed by court below in the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C., he may approach the revisional court for appropriate relief.

7. 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 and children.

8. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Manish Himwan