Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86591 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6278 of 2024 Revisionist :- Kalamullah Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya,G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been moved with prayer to allow the revision and quash/set aside the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.1101449/2013 (237/2012) (Smt. Maimunnisha and another vs. Kalamullah) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party nos.2 & 3 are wife and minor daughter of the revisionist. The marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 was performed in the year 2003. The wife started misbehaving with the revisionist and left his house and started living in her maika. She is able to maintain herself as she works tailoring. She is living separate from the revisionist without any sufficient cause and filed an application for maintenance which has been allowed by the learned trial court without considering the fact that she is living apart from the revisionist without any sufficient reason. He also submits that the revisionist is labourer and lives in Mumbai in relation to his livelihood and neither he owns shoe factory nor works there. In this regard the statement made by the opposite party no.2 is totally false. The learned trial court without considering the income of the revisionist passed the order dated 27.08.2024 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.2000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.1000/- per month in favour of minor daughter from the date of application to the date of order and from the date of order Rs.3000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of minor daughter. The amount so fixed by the learned trial court is beyond the paying capacity of the revisionist, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 27.08.2024 being erroneous and allow the revision. Learned for the opposite party opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that due to harassment of the revisionist the opposite party no.2 started living in her maika with minor daughter and he did not provide money to her for maintenance. The revisionist lives in Mumbai in relation to his livelihood and admittedly works as labourer and earns Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- per day as he disclosed before the learned trial court. It shows that he is able bodied person makes earning as aforesaid. He further contends that the opposite part no.2 being first wife alive, the revisionist entered into second marriage and have children from her. This shows that the revisionist misbehaved with the opposite party no.2 and neglected to maintain her alongwith daughter. The learned trial court has passed the order fixing the amount of maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of minor daughter though the amount is meagre and less than sufficient. There is no any error of fact or law in the order in question. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that opposite party nos.2 & 3 are wedded wife and minor daughter of the revisionist. Due to misbehaviour and neglect on the part of the revisionist the opposite party no.2 started living in her maika. The revisionist, first wife being alive, entered into second marriage and have children from the second wife as he admitted before the learned trial court. He is able bodied person and earns Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- per day by working as labourer in Mumbai as he admitted himself. In view of his income the amount of Rs.3000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of minor daughter from the date of order and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.1000/- per month in favour of minor daughter from the date of application to the date of order cannot be said to be excessive or beyond the paying capacity of the revisionist. 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 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad