Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93464 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5445 of 2024 Revisionist :- Bharat Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Rai,Avesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No. 332 of 2023 (Smt. Kallo and another Vs. Bharat Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Hayat Nagar, District Sambhal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is daughter of the revisionist who has become major. The marriage was performed 26 years prior from the year 2023 and opposite party no. 3, Rajni was born with the wedlock. The opposite party no. 2 started living separate from him in her maika with the opposite party no. 3 when she was minor. After marriage the opposite party no. 2 started misbehaving with the revisionist and other members of his family. She was always pacified by the revisionist but she was unable to bring change in her nature but went to her maika with jewellery and minor daughter. He paid Rs. 80,000/- for the purpose of marriage of his daughter to her mother and maternal uncle (mama) but they spent the said amount for their own expenditure. He is ready to get the daughter married but if he hands over the amount to the opposite party no. 2, he is under apprehension that she would misappropriate the amount. She has also filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. in family court prior to present application and was decided in favour of the revisionist even though she filed the present application again. Further submitted that he works as labourer and has no sufficient income to make payment of Rs. 6000/- per month to the wife as maintenance and make payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of opposite party no. 3, daughter, who has become major for her marriage. The learned trial court did not consider his capacity to make payment of such amount but passed the order dated 18.07.2024, therefore request to set aside the order passed by learned trail court and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are admittedly wife and daughter of the revisionist. Now the daughter has become major aged about 24 years. The opposite party no. 2 was misbehaved by the revisionist and expelled from her Sasural with the minor daughter after three years of her marriage, since then she is living in her father's house. She was always ready to go with the revisionist but he did not take her back. The opposite party no. 2 suffers from paralysis but no treatment was provided on the part of the revisionist but it was provided by her parents. She is also suffering with physical disability in walking and talking. The revisionist entered into second marriage without divorce from the opposite party no. 2 and have children. The revisionist himself has admitted before the learned trial court that he has entered into second marriage and name of second wife is Laxmi. There are three sons and one daughter from the second wife. He has also transferred his agricultural land in favour of those three sons. No part of the land has been transferred in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Further he stated that he works as labourer and also cultivates in his own agricultural land. He also stated that he transferred the land in favour of three sons of second wife to deprive the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the property and has not taken divorce from the opposite party no. 2 before the second marriage. All these facts show that the opposite party no. 2 started living in her maika with minor daughter, opposite party no. 3 (now major) under compulsion, thereafter she suffered paralysis and is not in a position to make any earning. On the other hand, the revisionist without taking divorce from her entered into second marriage and also transferred total agricultural land in favour of three sons born to the second wife for the purpose of depriving the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 of the share in the property. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 6000/- per month in favour of wife, which cannot be said to be excessive or more than paying capacity of the revisionist and the amount as fixed lump sum by the learned trial court for the purpose of marriage of the unmarried daughter can also not be said to be more than sufficient. The learned trial court has itself directed the revisionist to make payment of lump sum amount for the purpose of marriage of daughter through demand draft or in her account. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court as a result this revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad