HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5966 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri P.K. Rao, holding brief of Shri Suman Jaiswal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State- opposite party no. 1 and perusal the material on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 5367 of 2022 (Manraj Singh Vs. Naseeb Singh) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Bilaspur, District- Rampur, by which the application of the opposite party no.2 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application till he attains the age of majority. 3. The solitary argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of application is excessive as the revisionist has no source of income. He is simply Granthi in the Gurudwara and admittedly he carrying his livelihood from the amount paid by the Gurudwara. The revisionist further admitted that the opposite party no.2 is his minor son. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that keeping in view the present scenario and cost of living the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month granted by the trial court cannot be said to be excessive, therefore, the order impugned passed by the trial court does not call for interference by this Hon'ble Court. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Radhey Shyam Dwivedi, Ravindra Kumar Mishra, Suman Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vinod Singh, G.A. Naseeb Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. 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 is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is the minor son of the revisionist, however, the revisionist is stated to be Granthi in the Gurudwara, even then it is not only the moral duty of the revisionist but it is under legal obligation to maintain her minor children. So far as the amount of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the trial court is concerned, it is already in lower side, therefore, it cannot be said that the amount awarded by the trial court is excessive, hence, the impugned order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision being bereft of merit is dismissed. 7. It has been apprised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that there is huge amount of arrears, which are to be paid by the revisionist, which cannot be paid in one stroke, therefore, it is divided in ten equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The rest nine instalments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. October 8, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 5966 of 2024 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad