HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6121 of 2024 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State are present. 2. Perusal of record shows that the revisionist was granted time to file rejoinder affidavit on 29.04.2026, but till date he has not filed his rejoinder affidavit and further seeks time to file rejoinder affidavit, therefore, the opportunity of filing rejoinder affidavit is hereby closed. 3. Present criminal revision is being preferred against the impugned order dated passed 29.08.2024, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court no.5, Prayagraj in Case No.760 of 2020 (Smt. Lalti Devi & others Vs. Maniram Patel), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj, by the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, from the date of application and Rs.4000/- each to the opposite party nos.3 and 4, from the date of application till their attaining the age of majority. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that marriage of the opposite party no.2 has been solemnized with revisionist on 21.04.2007 and two children were born but the opposite party no.2 without any reason started to live with her parents at her own sweet will. The revisionist uses his salary to support his children, i.e. opposite party no.3 and 4, while the opposite party no.2 does not contribute a single penny from her salary obtained from Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Kuldeep Singh, Vipin Vinod Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Maniram Patel Alias Maniram .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Anganwadi to the children's expenses. Revisionist got a settlement deed written on 07.03.2021, but the opposite party no.2 is neither paying attention to the said settlement deed nor has it been implemented. The opposite party no.2 is fully capable of supporting herself and her children with the income earned from farming and Anganwadi, hence she does not need any kind of maintenance. 5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist further contends that the learned trial court concerned did not properly assessed the income of revisionist as well as the income of opposite party no.2. It is admitted fact that the opposite party no.2 is posted on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri and drawing the honorarium of Rs.50,000/- per month, but the learned trial court committed gross illegality by awarding Rs.10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.4000/-each to the opposite party nos.3 and 4. 6. Learned Counsel the opposite party nos.2 to 4 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the revisionist is an alcoholic and abused the opposite party no.2, both physically and mentally. Revisionist used to neglect the opposite party nos.2 to 4 and used to live at his brother's house and attacks the opposite party no.2 with axe on confrontation. Opposite party nos.2 to 4 further submits that the revisionist has not paid single penny in compliance of the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned trial court, due to which the opposite party no.2 made an application before the execution court for deduction of the maintenance amount from the salary of the revisionist to the tune of Rs.36,000/- per month and the learned trial court vide order dated 02.08.2025 directed the competent authority for deduction of the same amount, yet till date no deduction has been done by the competent authority in favour of opposite party nos.2 to 4. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 shows that learned trial court placed reliance on the judgment Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi AIR 1975 SC 83, where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the court should ensure that the amount of maintenance is sufficient to enable the wife to live a CRLR No. 6121 of 2024 2 simple life, neither luxurious nor penurious. From the evidences, it is clear that the revisionist described his brother's adult children as dependents, while he did not describe his own children as dependents. It is clear that the revisionist is not taking any responsibility of his children. A review of the settlement agreement signed by the revisionist at concerned police station on 07.03.2021, which clearly shows that even at that time, the revisionist was not providing any support for his family. Revisionist has a government service, receiving a monthly salary of approximately Rs.61,000/- per month, whereas the opposite party no.2 is bearing the expenses for the education and medical care of the said minor and ailing son. Keeping in mind the evidence on record, the learned trial court concerned directed the revisionist to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, from the date of application and Rs.4000/- each to the opposite party nos.3 and 4, from the date of application till their attaining the age of majority. 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 passed 29.08.2024, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court no.5, Prayagraj in Case No.760 of 2020 (Smt. Lalti Devi & others Vs. Maniram Patel), under section 125 Cr.P.C., needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed. May 14, 2026 VKG CRLR No. 6121 of 2024 3 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad