Allahabad High Court

CHINTU @ CHINTU KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 20 April 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The application under Section 528 CrPC to quash the interim maintenance order is dismissed, as the trial court's assessment of income and award of maintenance are upheld.

Summary

The applicant, Chintu Kumar, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash an order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court, Aligarh, which directed him to pay interim maintenance of Rs.4,500 per month to his wife under Section 125 CrPC. The applicant alleged that the trial court had erred in assessing his income and granting the maintenance without proper consideration of the record. The court examined the trial court's findings, noting that the applicant's income was correctly assessed at Rs.13,120 per month and that the maintenance award was reasonable given his responsibilities. It also observed that the applicant had failed to comply with the maintenance order and was using the present application to delay payment, constituting an abuse of process. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application, upholding the trial court's order.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in granting interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to the applicant's wife.
Whether the applicant's application under Section 528 CrPC to quash the maintenance order is maintainable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 528

Subjects

interim maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
Section 528 CrPC
family law
abuse of process
maintenance assessment

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 48868 of 2025

Chintu @ Chintu Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajnish Kumar Pandey, Santosh Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ravi Pandey, Suraj Pandey

Court No. - 81
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2, Sri Jhamman Ram, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

2. This application has been preferred by the applicant with prayer to quash
the order dated 03.07.2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Court No.3, Aligarh, in Case No.1637 of 2023(Chanchal
Kumari Vs. Chintu), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Mandrak,
District Aligarh, whereby the application 16-Ka, moved by the opposite
party no.2 for interim maintenance was allowed and the applicant was
directed to pay Rs.4500/- per month to the opposite party no.2, from the date
of application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no.2,
who is wife of the applicant has moved an application 16-Ka, in Case
No.1637 of 2023(Chanchal Kumari Vs. Chintu), under section 125 Cr.P.C.,
Police Station Mandrak, District Aligarh, for interim maintenance, in the
court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3,
Aligarh, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 03.07.2024 and the
applicant was directed to pay Rs.4500/- per month to the opposite party no.2,
as interim maintenance, from the date of application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that trial court has
allowed the application 16-Ka, moved by the opposite party no.2, wrongly
NA528 No. 48868 of 2025
2

and illegally without considering the material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for
the State have drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated
03.07.2024, by which the applicant was directed to pay the interim
maintenance amount of Rs.4500/- to the opposite party no.2, from the date
of application, which has not been complied by the applicant and he filed the
present application before this Court, only to delay the payment of
maintenance, as awarded vide order dated 03.07.2024.

6. Perusal of record shows that the applicant has not denied his marriage
with the opposite party no.2 at the time of deciding of application 16-Ka,
moved by the opposite party no.2 for interim maintenance. The learned trial
court has held the income of the applicant of Rs.13,120 per month and
assessed him as skilled labourer. The trial court after considering the other
responsibilities of the applicant granted interim maintenance of Rs.4500/-
per month to the opposite party no.2, from the date of application. There is
no ground to interfering with the assessment of the trial court regarding
income of the applicant.

7. The applicant has failed to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.4500/- per
month to the opposite party no.2, as awarded by the trial court vide
impugned order dated 03.07.2025 and has filed the present application
before this Court only to delay the payment of interim maintenance, The
conduct of the applicant is highly objectionable and an abuse of the process
of law.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, present application moved by the applicant
is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the present application is hereby dismissed.

April 21, 2026
VKG
(Achal Sachdev,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…