Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93621 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5653 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Dhirendra Bahadur 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 material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 898 of 2020 (Smt. Surja Devi and others Vs. Sunil Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Nawabganj, District Jhansi and further prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order during the pendency of this revision. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no. 2 is wife, opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are daughter and son of the revisionist those are living apart from him without any sufficient cause. He further submits that he gets salary about Rs. 40,000/- per month as being Constable, out of which the learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month to each in favour of daughter and son, total Rs. 15,000/- per month that is excessive and disproportionate and beyond his paying capacity of the revisionist. He further submits that the revisionist has purchased two plots in favour of his wife and has also constructed the house to live in which she is living and has also let the house on rent out of which she makes income of Rs. 15,000/- per month, therefore, able to maintain herself. He further submits that the elder son Mohit Kumar has been recruited as Constable in U.P. Police and is on training. He also gives money to the opposite party no. 2, therefore, she cannot be said to be entitled for maintenance from the revisionist. He further submits that the allegation as made by the revisionist that he has kept some other lady namely, Ritu Yadav is totally false. He further submits that from the year 1995 to 2007 she lived with him happily. Admittedly she made no any complaint. She also stated that from the year 2007 to the year 2016 he never harassed but maintained her properly. It shows that the revisionist never neglected but maintained his wife/the opposite party no. 2, the daughter and son. This fact was not considered by the learned trial court while deciding the case but allowed an application and passed the order dated 24.09.2024 which cannot be said to be lawful, therefore, it being illegal and inappropriate is liable to be set aside and revision is to be allowed. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On considering the facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 24.09.2024, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 was married to the revisionist in the year 1995 and three children were born from the wedlock. At present Kumari Shivani and Anubhav are living with opposite party no. 2 and third child Mohit Kumar has been recruited in U.P. Police and is under training. Admittedly the revisionist did not misbehave or harass the opposite party no. 2 till the year 2016 as stated by the opposite party no. 2 during her cross-examination before the learned trial court but he entangled with some other lady namely, Ritu Yadav when he was posted at Kanpur Nagar in the year 2015 and he started spending money on her and also enjoying her company and neglected the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 that was the reason present application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by her against the revisionist. Since his salary is about Rs. 40,000/- per month out of which Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month to each for daughter and son cannot be said to be excessive or more than paying capacity of the revisionist. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. So far as the recovery of arrears of the amount of maintenance is concerned, the revisionist is directed to make deposit of 50% amount of arrears within two months and the remaining amount shall be deposited in twelve equal installments with the current amount of maintenance. The amount of arrears of maintenance, if any, received by the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall be subjected to adjustment. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of finally. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad