Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114337 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6130 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Kant Yadav 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. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court- III, Jaunpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 726 of 2020 (Neelam Yadav and another Vs. Sunil Kumar Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sarpataha, District Jaunpur. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor son of the revisionist. Without any sufficient reason, the opposite party no. 2 is living apart from him and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by the learned trial court by fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 4000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of minor son, total Rs. 7000/- per month that is beyond his paying capacity, since he drives motor vehicle and has no any independent and regular source of income, therefore, request to reduce the amount and set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 was married to the revisionist in the year 2013 out of their wedlock a son, opposite party no. 3 was born, thereafter due to harassment on the part of the revisionist and other family members, she started living apart from him in her maika with minor son. He never paid any amount of expenses except in compliance of order of the learned trial court. The revisionist being an able bodied person is under legal obligation to maintain his wife. The learned trial court has passed the order in question and fixed the amount of maintenance that is reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive. On considering the 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 dated 23.08.2024, it appears that due to neglect on the part of the revisionist, the opposite party no. 2 is living apart from him with minor son aged about 11 years at present. Though she is an educated lady and completed B.Ed. and TET but there is nothing on record to show that she provides tuition to the students and makes earning. The revisionist has stated that she works as beautician and makes earning of Rs. 15,000/- per month and able to maintain herself but there is nothing on record to show that she makes earning by such profession. On the other hand, the father of the revisionist owns a tractor and Bolero vehicle and his brother owns a truck. He stated before the learned trial court during his examination that he drives the truck, tractor and Bolero. In this way, it cannot be said that the revisionist is not able to make payment of amount of maintenance to the wife and minor son as fixed by the learned trial court, which cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. There appears no any illegality and impropriety in the order, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad