HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4441 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. The present criminal revision is being preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddharth Nagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No.397 of 2018, CNR No.UPSD020009682018 (Rajendra Vs. Rupesh), by which the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist for maintenance has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist was married to the opposite party no.2's mother, but the marriage was deteriorated because of the nature of the wife. She aided by her brother-in- law, filed Case No.358/2002, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist. Consequently, the case was decided on 17.03.2004, ordering maintenance for the opposite party no.2, his sister, and his mother. He further submits that few years ago, when the opposite party no.2 became an adult, the revisionist stopped paying his expenses. The revisionist does not own any agricultural land and is elderly. He suffers from respiratory and arthritis problems and due to lack of capital and physical weakness, he is unable to earn any money. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prabhakar Dubey Rajendra .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the revisionist and submits that the opposite party no.2 and his family were thrown out of their house in the year 2001 itself by the revisionist, therefore, the case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by his mother and now the revisionist has stopped paying the maintenance of opposite party no.2's mother, thus neglecting and abandoning her. Revisionist is financially well-off, owning a construction and grocery store. He also has substantial agricultural land and a permanent house, earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per day. Furthermore, he wants to transfer his properties to the children of his second wife and deprive the opposite party no.2 of his properties forever and is not entitled to receive maintenance. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 shows that the learned trial court concerned dismissed the application of the revisionist for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the oral and documentary evidence proved that the revisionist is capable of maintaining himself whereas the opposite party no.2 does not possess enough means to support the revisionist. The trial court has further observed that the mother of opposite party no.2 has instituted a case for maintenance before the competent court and the order of maintenance was passed in her favour and against the revisionist on 17.03.2004 and the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of money towards maintenance to mother of opposite party no.2 and also maintenance was awarded to the opposite party no.2 and his sister till her marriage (who were minor at that time). The revisionist had been paying the maintenance amount as has been directed till the year 2017, but when the revisionist stop paying the maintenance amount from May-2017, an application was filed before the court concerned for enhancement of the maintenance amount and the maintenance amount was subsequently enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the mother of opposite party no.2. It is apparent that in response to the maintenance proceeding that had been filed by the first wife of the revisionist (mother of opposite party no.2) against him, the present application for maintenance has been moved by the revisionist against the his son from first marriage i.e. opposite party no.2, to CRLR No. 4441 of 2024 2 avoid payment of maintenance amount to his first wife. The learned trial court impugned order is very well reasoned and justified, therefore, warrants no interference by this Court. 6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2024, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddharth Nagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No.397 of 2018, CNR No.UPSD020009682018 (Rajendra Vs. Rupesh), by which the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed. May 14, 2026 VKG CRLR No. 4441 of 2024 3 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad