Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133847 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6619 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sachchidanand Mishra Advocate Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Singh Yadav,Rajjan Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Archana Singh,G.A.,Ved Prakash Pandey Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed to set aside the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur in Maintenance Case No./Criminal Misc. Case No.477 of 2015 (Smt. Situ Vs. Sachchidanand Mishra) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Ramchandra Mission, District Shahajahanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the husband-revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the ground that, in compliance of a previous order of this Court, the revisionist is continuously paying maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to the wife. However, this fact was not considered by the trial court while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the wife/opposite party No.2 possesses immovable property having a market value of more than Rs. 40 lakhs, but this fact was also not considered by the trial court in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the trial court has excessively assessed the income of the husband, and as such, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the wife/opposite party No.2 has submitted that the trial court has duly considered the above submissions of the husband-revisionist and has passed a reasoned and legal order, which is unassailable. With these submissions, it has been prayed that the criminal revision be dismissed. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the husband is a practicing advocate, of about 30 years experience at the Bar, whereas the wife does not have any independent income. It has also come on record that previously in Application Under Section 482 No. 11328 of 2021 (Sachchidanand Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & another), by order dated 15.02.2022, the husband was directed to pay arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs. 1,04,000/- and a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the wife w.e.f March, 2022. This fact was also considered by the trial court while passing the impugned order, which specifically mentions that any maintenance already paid by the husband to the wife is liable to be adjusted from the amount to be paid in compliance of the impugned order. 6. It is also evident that the husband did not submit in his written statement that the wife has substantial immovable property valued at about 40 lakhs. As such, this plea cannot be allowed to be raised by the husband-revisionist at this stage. A photocopy of a sale deed was referred during arguments in this Court, which only showed a sale consideration of about Rs.1 lac of which, the wife was alleged to be the co-owner. 7. The trial court has awarded only a maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the wife which cannot be termed as excessive or unreasonable given that husband is an advocate of about 30 years, standing at the Bar. 8. I am of the opinion that the trial court has considered the evidence on record meticulously and has given a perfectly legal finding, which cannot be challenged by the husband in these proceedings. 8. The present revision has got no merits and is accordingly, dismissed. The impugned order of the trial court is affirmed. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Himanshu Digitally signed by :- HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad