Umesh Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.1.2020 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 479 of 2018 ( Smt. Priyanka Chaudhary and others Vs. Rahul Chaudhary and others) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kavinagar District- Ghaziabad. Further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case has also been made.
3. By the impugned order the Court below below has partly allowed the interim maintenance application of opposite party no.2 has directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2.
4. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the opposite party No.2 is the wife of the applicant, who is an able bodied person. An able-bodied person has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be reasonably able to maintain his wife and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain her according to the family standard. No cogent grounds have been canvassed as to why such able bodied person is unable for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his wife.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 702 [LQ/SC/2014/1022] has observed as under:-
6. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.
7. In view of settled legal position, enumerated above, impugned order is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error.
8. Accordingly, prayer made in the present application is refused.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the competent Court is to act in accordance with law.
10. With the above observation, this application stands disposed of accordingly.
