HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 847 of 2024 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 & 3, is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 & 3 and learned AGA for the State are present. 3. The present criminal revision is being preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2024, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.5, Ghaziabad, in Case No.744 of 2018 (Smt. Alka Yadav and Another Vs. Gaurav Kumar Yadav), under section 125 Cr.P.C, whereby the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife from the date of application i.e. 28.09.2018 and Rs.7000/- per month to the opposite party no.3/daughter, from the date of application till her attaining the age of majority. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage between the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 solemnized on 18.02.2010 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals. The revisionist denied all allegations of cruelty. He contended that the opposite party no.2's suspicion regarding second marriage of revisionist was baseless. Revisionist claimed that due to the ongoing litigation, he had to resign from his bank job in January 2019 and is currently employed as a Sales Executive at AG Financial Services in Ludhiana, Punjab, earning a meager salary of Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shivam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Gaurav Kumar Yadav .....Revisionist(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Rs.14,000/- per month. The opposite party no.2 is highly educated (M.A., B.Ed.) and earns Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month by conducting private tuitions, which she spends on her own whims and owns a car. They had been living in a rented house in Ghaziabad for which he paid the rent and the revisionist was directly funding opposite party no.3's school fees, uniform, and books without any financial support of the opposite party no.2. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel of the revisionist and submit that the father of the opposite party no.2 spent around Rs.15,00,000/- in the marriage. After the marriage, the revisionist's behavior became cruel and fighting became his habit. He also had a second marriage a woman named Babita Rawat, which led him to desert and stop maintaining his wife and daughter. An assault on 04.07.2018, led to a police complaint (under Section 151 Cr.P.C.) and another assault on 06.06.2017 was reported on 07.06.2017 in Mahila Thana. Opposite party nos.2 &3 currently resides in a rented flat in Ghaziabad with the parents of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 is a homemaker with no independent source of income. Revisionist worked as an ARM Manager at Indus Bank, Greater Noida, earning a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month and an additional income of Rs.10,000/- per month from flat rental income, approximately Rs.50,000/- per month from 60 Bighas of agricultural land totaling the monthly income to Rs.1,10,000/- per month. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 shows that the learned trial court concerned allowed the application under section 125 C.r.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2/wife, primarily on the ground that the revisionist is an able-bodied man capable of earning. The learned trial court concerned placed reliance on the judgment Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi AIR 1 075 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 simple life, neither luxurious nor penurious. Even by his own admission of earning Rs.14,000/- per month, he is fully capable of providing maintenance CRLR No. 847 of 2024 2 to the opposite party nos.2 & 3. Furthermore, the record showed that since 2018, the revisionist/husband only paid partial maintenance when explicitly directed by the trial court, establishing clear neglect on his part. In light of the findings and adhering to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan V. Kamla Devi(Supra), the learned trial court concerned ruled that the opposite party nos.2 & 3 are legally entitled to standard maintenance corresponding to the husband's socioeconomic standing and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife from the date of application i.e. 28.09.2018 and Rs.7000/- per month to the opposite party no.3/daughter, from the date of application till her attaining the age of majority. The revisionist has not filed any affidavit regarding his source of income and liabilities, in the light of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Therefore, the learned trial court impugned order is very well reasoned and justified and warrants no interference by this Court. 7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order dated 25.01.2024, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.5, Ghaziabad, in Case No.744 of 2018 (Smt. Alka Yadav and Another Vs. Gaurav Kumar Yadav), under section 125 Cr.P.C, needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed. May 14, 2026 VKG CRLR No. 847 of 2024 3 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad