HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5683 of 2024 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the state are present. 2. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even in the revised call. 3. Perusal of the order sheet shows that on several dates neither no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 nor the counter affidavit has been filed as yet, therefore the opportunity to file the counter affidavit is hereby closed. 4. Present revision has been preferred against the order dated 03.08.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, in Criminal Misc. Case No.1523 of 2022(CNR No.UPBU020037402022), under section, 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Khanpur, District Bulandshahr), whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 15.11.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 04.06.2013, as per Hindu customs and traditions. The opposite party no.2 has always been a woman of independent thinking who expressly refused to live with the family of the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pushpendra Singh Deepchand .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) revisionist on the ground of it being a big one. Approximately two years after their marriage, she quarreled with all her in-laws and forcibly began living separately. The opposite party no.2 and the revisionist had two children, a son, Vipul, and a daughter, Tanvi. The revisionist labored and raised the opposite party no.2 and his two children, living separately from his paternal family. The revisionist worked as a woodcutter and on 22.10.2020, while cutting a tree, he suddenly fell from the tree making him 40% disable and he continues to live like a disabled person since then. The opposite party no.2 remained adamant on not living with the revisionist and demanded a divorce and Rs.15 lakh from revisionist. When the revisionist refused to grant a divorce, the opposite party no.2 left both children with the revisionist and went to her parents' home and threatened the revisionist and his family with dire consequences. Since then, her two children are being raised by the revisionist's elderly brothers and the opposite party no.2 has abandoned the revisionist and their children without any valid or sufficient reason. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 is a healthy woman and is capable of supporting herself, whereas the revisionist is a helpless and disabled person and is living a life of extreme hardship. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist and submit that vide order dated 28.01.2026, the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandhshahr, Uttar Pradesh was directed to constitute a Medical Board comprising at least three doctors to ascertain the degree of physical disability and physical working condition of the revisionist and according to the report submitted by Chief Medical Officer, Bulandhshahr, it was found by the Medical Board that the revisionist has 40 percent disability and is currently unable to perform heavy work, however it is not of permanent nature and he may recover from treatment in the future. He further contends that the learned trial court has concluded that the revisionist has shown gross negligence and neglect in providing maintenance to the opposite party no.2/wife. The opposite party no.2 is unable to support herself whereas the revisionist has sufficient source of income to support himself and his family. CRLR No. 5683 of 2024 2 7. Perusal of the impugned order of learned trial court shows that the application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2 was allowed by the learned trial court in view of the current inflation etc. and in continuation of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.730/2020, Rajnesh vs. Neha & Others decided on 4.11.2020. To the learned trial court, it appeared justified to grant maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the revisionist with effect from the date of filing of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. With regards to cruelty and dowry demand, only general allegations had been made without any evidence nor any report or complaint has been filed by the opposite party no.2 in relation to the dowry harassment. The revisionist neither inquired about the well being of the opposite party no.2/wife nor provided any financial assistance deliberately. The revisionist claimed that the opposite party no.2 is a healthy woman and capable of supporting herself but could not provide any concrete documentary evidence for the same. The learned trial court impugned order is very well reasoned and justified, therefore, warrants no interference by this Court. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, in Criminal Misc. Case No.1523 of 2022(CNR No.UPBU020037402022), under section, 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Khanpur, District Bulandshahr),, needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the present revision under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. May 8, 2026 VKG CRLR No. 5683 of 2024 3 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad