Lalati v. Awadhesh) under Section

Heard Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. No.1 and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of O.P. no.2 to 4 even in the revised reading of cause list.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash order order dated 12.03.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No.142 of 2006 (Lalati vs. Awadhesh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S.Rani ki Sarai, District-Azamgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 and out of their wedlock two children were born (O.P.no.3 and O.P. no.4). Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, his wife/O.P. has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 01.02.2005 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh. He next submitted that during pendency of the application, compromise was arrived at between the parties on 02.01.2006 and the court below decided the application vide order dated 28.03.2006 in terms of compromise. He submitted that in pursuance of the compromise, O.P. nos.2 to 4 started living with the applicant in his house with love and affection but after sometimes, again dispute arose between the parties and Application U/S 482 No.-9637 of 2015 Awadhesh vs.State of U.P. & Ors. a execution proceeding was initiated by the opposite parties against the applicant being Execution Case No.142 of 2006 on 03.07.2006. The applicant raised objection to the execution case but the court below has passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2015 without applying its judicial mind. He submitted that the applicant is ready to keep his wife and children with him but O.P. no.2 has left the house on her own sweet will. He further argued that O.P. no.2 has initiated another proceedings before the court below under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which is numbers as Case No.81 of 2010 wherein O.P. no.2 has specifically stated that the she has been residing at the applicant’s house since 25.01.2011 with love and affection. He submitted that the order passed on application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was terminated on the basis of compromise and without there being any fresh order on application under section 125 Cr.P.C., the court below has initiated execution proceedings against the applicant, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He added that proceeding under section 128 Cr.P.C. can only be initiated when there is an order passed under section 125 Cr.P.C. but in the instant case, order passed under section125 Cr.P.C. was terminated on the basis of compromise. He next submitted on the basis of execution application, the court below has issued recovery warrant of 1,83,000/- against the ˟␢ applicant in a very mechanical manner, which has no leg to stand. He next contended that the applicant has also filed objection in the recovery proceeding under section 128 Cr.P.C. which has been ignored by the court below. At last, he added that the impugned order passed by the court below is arbitrary, bad and perverse in the eyes of law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the Court below has rightly initiated the execution proceedings against the applicant. He also added that instead of paying maintenance amount to O.P. no.2, the applicant has preferred the instant 2 Application U/S 482 No.-9637 of 2015 Awadhesh vs.State of U.P. & Ors. application which is just a ploy to delay the payment, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order.

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. On perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the court below has returned a finding that application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided in terms of compromise and when the terms of compromise was violated by the applicant, the opposite parties had preferred application under section 128 Cr.P.C. on 03.07.2006. The court below has further observed that as per the compromise in case of violation of terms of the compromise, the opposite party was entitled to compensation of 2,000/- per month. It is further ˟␢ observed in the impugned order that the applicant has filed objection to the application under section 128 Cr.P.C. filed by O.P. no.2 in 2009 i.e. after lapse of three year of filing of the said application and if the court below directs O.P. no.2 to file fresh application under section 125 Cr.P.C. as per objection of the applicant, it would cause injustice to O.P. no.2. The court below has categorically recorded a finding that section 125 Cr.P.C. is for aid to a deserted woman and its interpretation cannot be made in such a way which causes harm to her. I see no good reason to interfere in the impugned order. Instead of complying with the said order, applicant has filed the instant application, which seems just a ploy to delay the payment of amount to his wife and minor children. 3 Application U/S 482 No.-9637 of 2015 Awadhesh vs.State of U.P. & Ors.

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 :11.07.2025 Manish Himwan PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4

Heard Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. No.1 and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of O.P. no.2 to 4 even in the revised reading of cause list.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash order order dated 12.03.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No.142 of 2006 (Lalati vs. Awadhesh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S.Rani ki Sarai, District-Azamgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 and out of their wedlock two children were born (O.P.no.3 and O.P. no.4). Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, his wife/O.P. has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 01.02.2005 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh. He next submitted that during pendency of the application, compromise was arrived at between the parties on 02.01.2006 and the court below decided the application vide order dated 28.03.2006 in terms of compromise. He submitted that in pursuance of the compromise, O.P. nos.2 to 4 started living with the applicant in his house with love and affection but after sometimes, again dispute arose between the parties and Application U/S 482 No.-9637 of 2015 Awadhesh vs.State of U.P. & Ors. a execution proceeding was initiated by the opposite parties against the applicant being Execution Case No.142 of 2006 on 03.07.2006. The applicant raised objection to the execution case but the court below has passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2015 without applying its judicial mind. He submitted that the applicant is ready to keep his wife and children with him but O.P. no.2 has left the house on her own sweet will. He further argued that O.P. no.2 has initiated another proceedings before the court below under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which is numbers as Case No.81 of 2010 wherein O.P. no.2 has specifically stated that the she has been residing at the applicant’s house since 25.01.2011 with love and affection. He submitted that the order passed on application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was terminated on the basis of compromise and without there being any fresh order on application under section 125 Cr.P.C., the court below has initiated execution proceedings against the applicant, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He added that proceeding under section 128 Cr.P.C. can only be initiated when there is an order passed under section 125 Cr.P.C. but in the instant case, order passed under section125 Cr.P.C. was terminated on the basis of compromise. He next submitted on the basis of execution application, the court below has issued recovery warrant of 1,83,000/- against the ˟␢ applicant in a very mechanical manner, which has no leg to stand. He next contended that the applicant has also filed objection in the recovery proceeding under section 128 Cr.P.C. which has been ignored by the court below. At last, he added that the impugned order passed by the court below is arbitrary, bad and perverse in the eyes of law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the Court below has rightly initiated the execution proceedings against the applicant. He also added that instead of paying maintenance amount to O.P. no.2, the applicant has preferred the instant 2 Application U/S 482 No.-9637 of 2015 Awadhesh vs.State of U.P. & Ors. application which is just a ploy to delay the payment, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order.

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. On perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the court below has returned a finding that application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided in terms of compromise and when the terms of compromise was violated by the applicant, the opposite parties had preferred application under section 128 Cr.P.C. on 03.07.2006. The court below has further observed that as per the compromise in case of violation of terms of the compromise, the opposite party was entitled to compensation of 2,000/- per month. It is further ˟␢ observed in the impugned order that the applicant has filed objection to the application under section 128 Cr.P.C. filed by O.P. no.2 in 2009 i.e. after lapse of three year of filing of the said application and if the court below directs O.P. no.2 to file fresh application under section 125 Cr.P.C. as per objection of the applicant, it would cause injustice to O.P. no.2. The court below has categorically recorded a finding that section 125 Cr.P.C. is for aid to a deserted woman and its interpretation cannot be made in such a way which causes harm to her. I see no good reason to interfere in the impugned order. Instead of complying with the said order, applicant has filed the instant application, which seems just a ploy to delay the payment of amount to his wife and minor children. 3 Application U/S 482 No.-9637 of 2015 Awadhesh vs.State of U.P. & Ors.

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 :11.07.2025 Manish Himwan PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4