HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6500 of 2024 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist, is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State are present. 3. Present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Gorakhpur, in Maintenance Case No.511 of 2018 (Shreya and others Vs. Rangesh Kumar @ Rangesh Shah), under section 125 Cr.P.C., by which revisionist was directed to pay Rs.8000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, Rs.4000/- to the opposite party no.3/daughter till her marriage, Rs.4000/- each to the opposite party nos.4 and 5/minor sons till they attained the age of majority, from the date of application i.e. 05.10.2018 to date of order i.e. 29.04.2024. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Gorakhpur, further directed the revisionist to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, Rs.5000/- to the opposite party no.3/daughter till her marriage, Rs.5000/- each to the opposite party nos.4 and 5/minor sons till they attained the age of majority, from the date of order onward. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pravesh Kumar Tripathi, Vijendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, G.A., Maruti Kumar Tripathi Rangesh Kumar Alias Rangesh Shah .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage between the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 solemnized on 21.02.2015. The opposite party no.2 has a stubborn nature and keeps on taunting the revisionist and his parents on every small matter. On 07.06.2018 in the morning, the opposite party no.2 refused to live with the revisionist as his wife and threatened to commit suicide. On 17.06.2018 the opposite party no.2 left the house of the revisionist and went to her paternal home without any reasonable ground at her own sweet will. The revisionist was forced to file a case, No.1427/2018 (Rangesh Kumar Vs. Shreya), under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking the custody of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 is not entitled to any maintenance because the revisionist is willing to keep the opposite party no.2 with him, while the opposite party is not willing to come. Therefore, there is no justification for providing maintenance as the claim of opposite party no.2 is completely false and fabricated, and baseless. 5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist's total salary of Rs.70,448/- in which he is obtaining only Rs.68,448/-. The father of the revisionist is suffering from kidney decease and his treatment is going under S.P.G.I., Lucknow and each and every month revisionist carried him for treatment and expenses more than Rs.20,000/- per month. 6. Per Contra, the learned counsel of the opposite party nos.2 to 5 submits that a total of Rs.13,00,000/- was spent by the family of opposite party no.2 in the wedding and on 03.03.2016, opposite party no.2 gave birth to a daughter i.e. opposite party no.3, upon which the revisionist and his family began taunting for the birth of a daughter instead of a son. After securing a job in a government school, the behaviour of the revisionist changed for the worse and on 07.05.2017, revisionist called police without any reason and implicated the father of the opposite party no.2 in a false robbery case. On 03.11.2017, opposite party gave birth to twin sons i.e. opposite party nos.4 and 5. The revisionist neglected not only the wife but their children as well. Opposite party no.2 is a graduate and unemployed woman whereas the CRLR No. 6500 of 2024 2 revisionist is a government teacher and earns Rs.48,000/- per month and is fully capable of maintaining the opposite party now.2 to 5. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 as well as arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties shows that the learned trial court allowed the application of the maintenance primarily on the ground that it is clear from the evidence of the opposite party no.2 that on the birth of a daughter, due to taunts for the birth of a daughter, the revisionist beating the opposite party no.2 on different occasions and the opposite party no.2 is living separately from the revisionist in her maternal home with her three children since 07.06.2018. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of both the parties that the opposite party nos.2 to 5 are living separately from the revisionist for reasonable and sufficient reasons. The revisionist also admitted that all his brothers are in a government job and the father too receives the pension and the revisionist also earns enough to maintain the opposite party nos.2 to 5 and it is his moral responsibility as a husband and a father. Keeping in view the current inflation, daily expenses, maintenance, living conditions of the parties and the source of income of the revisionist and the responsibility of the revisionist for his own maintenance etc., it would be appropriate to provide maintenance to the opposite party no.2 and her three children. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SSC 636, has held that it is the husband's duty to maintain his wife. He cannot be allowed to plead that he is unable to earn a living and is unable to support her due to financial constraints. Keeping in light the guidelines of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the learned trial court concerned directed the revisionist to pay Rs.8000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, Rs.4000/- to the opposite party no.3/daughter till her marriage, Rs.4000/- each to the opposite party nos.4 and 5/minor sons till they attained the age of majority, from the date of application i.e. 05.10.2018 to date of order i.e. 29.04.2024. The learned Additional Principal CRLR No. 6500 of 2024 3 Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Gorakhpur, further directed the revisionist to pay pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, Rs.5000/- to the opposite party no.3/daughter till her marriage, Rs.5000/- each to the opposite party nos.4 and 5/minor sons till they attained the age of majority, from the date of order onward. The learned trial court impugned order is very well reasoned and justified, therefore, warrants no interference by this Court. 9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Gorakhpur, in Maintenance Case No.511 of 2018 (Shreya and others Vs. Rangesh Kumar @ Rangesh Shah), under section 125 Cr.P.C., needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed. May 13, 2026 VKG CRLR No. 6500 of 2024 4 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad