HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1473 of 2024 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Family Court awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2-wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no.3-minor daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. At the outset, it is relevant to notice the conduct of the revisionist before this Court. On his request, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre by order dated 22.03.2024, subject to deposit of Rs. 20,000/-, out of which Rs. 15,000/- was to be paid to the wife on her first appearance. The Mediation Centre has reported that the revisionist did not deposit the said amount. Consequently, notices could not even be issued to the opposite parties. Despite enjoying the interim order, the revisionist took no effective step for mediation or settlement for more than two years. 4. The marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 22.12.2012 according to Muslim Personal Law. A daughter, opposite party no.3, was born from the wedlock. The wife alleged that she was subjected to dowry demands and cruelty and was expelled from the matrimonial home on 15.03.2017 along with the minor Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : A.Q. Zaidi, Mohammad Danish Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Inaam Illahi .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) daughter. She pleaded that she has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself and the child. 5. The revisionist admitted the marriage and the birth of the daughter, but denied cruelty and desertion. His principal defence was that the wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and that he is willing to keep her. He further claimed that he earns only Rs. 250/- per day as a stabilizer repair mechanic and has no sufficient income to pay maintenance. He also alleged that the wife earns Rs. 50,000/- per month from tuition and beauty parlour work. 6. The record, however, does not support the revisionist’s defence. In compliance of guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, both parties had filed their affidavits of assets and liabilities. The wife disclosed that she is a graduate, a housewife, has no independent income, owns no property or business, and is maintaining the minor daughter. The revisionist, though educated and admittedly working as an electrician/mechanic, produced no credible documentary material to establish that his income is only Rs. 250/- per day. 7. On the contrary, the wife placed material including municipal tax assessment records, sale deed, pleadings and evidence from Original Suit No. 186 of 2021 and Original Suit No. 560/563 of 2023, which indicated that the revisionist and his family were engaged in electronic business. The learned Family Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the revisionist is engaged in electronic business and has sufficient income. Such finding is based on material evidence and cannot be termed perverse. 8. The plea that the wife is earning Rs. 50,000/- per month has also remained wholly unsubstantiated. A bald allegation of earning, without proof, cannot defeat a claim for maintenance, particularly where the wife CRLR No. 1473 of 2024 2 is maintaining a minor daughter and the husband has failed to disclose his true financial capacity with candour. 9. The learned Family Court also noticed that during cross-examination the revisionist had no proper knowledge about the school of his daughter or her educational expenses. This circumstance assumes significance. A father who seeks to avoid maintenance on the ground of willingness to keep the child and wife must show genuine concern and responsibility, not merely make a formal statement in Court. 10. The plea of willingness to maintain the wife in the matrimonial home is also not bona fide. Before this Court itself, the revisionist sought mediation but failed to deposit even the amount directed for initiating the process. His conduct shows that the plea of willingness is more in the nature of a defence to defeat maintenance than a genuine effort to resume matrimonial obligations. 11. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The jurisdiction is summary in nature and the object is to ensure that a wife and minor child, who are unable to maintain themselves, are not left without support. Once the Family Court has found that the wife is living separately for sufficient reasons, has no independent income, and the husband has sufficient earning capacity, the order of maintenance cannot be interfered with merely on the basis of self-serving assertions of poverty. 12. The amount awarded is modest. Rs. 5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the minor daughter cannot be said to be excessive, particularly in view of present living costs, educational expenses and the obligation of the father to maintain his child. The learned Family Court has also granted facility of payment of arrears in five quarterly instalments, which sufficiently balances the interests of the revisionist. CRLR No. 1473 of 2024 3 13. Revisional jurisdiction is limited. This Court is not required to re- appreciate the entire evidence as an appellate court unless the order suffers from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. The impugned order reflects due consideration of pleadings, affidavits, cross- examination and documentary material. No perversity or illegality is made out. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. April 27, 2026 Mini CRLR No. 1473 of 2024 4 (Garima Prashad,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad