HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4594 of 2024 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 3.6.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Philibhit in Case No. 486 of 2019 (Km. Divyanka Versus Natthulal). By the said order dated 3.6.2024 a sum of Rs. 5000/- has been awarded to the daughter of the revisionist, who is staying away from the revisionist for certain reason, i. e. there is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife i. e. revisionist (herein) and his wife, who is also staying away from the revisionist. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that the amount of Rs. 5000/- is excessive, exorbitant and beyond the financial resources of the revisionist, therefore the same is liable to be reduced or set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submitted that the revisionist is having seven acres of land and it is difficult to generate that much income so that he could pay Rs. 5000/- to opposite party no. 2 and prayed that the order dated 3.6.2024 is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that the said amount of Rs. 5000/- is bare minimum and the revisionist is in a comfortable position to pay the said amount. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and after going through the order dated 3.6.2024, it is clear that there is a matrimonial dispute between the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mohd Afzal, Vivek Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gorakh Nath Trivedi, Sonam Trivedi Natthulal .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) husband and wife but because of some dispute pending between husband and wife, the children cannot be made to suffer, particularly the daughter, who is of growing age and her needs are likely to go up with the passage of time, such as expenditure on education and clothes etc. and therefore, it is paramount duty of the father to take care of his children and in the present case, daughter of the revisionist, therefore no infirmity, whatsoever is found in the order dated 3.6.2024, wherein the maintenance has been awarded to none other than, the daughter of the revisionist. 7. In view of the above, the revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed March 18, 2026 HR CRLR No. 4594 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad