Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24242 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 70 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sikander Opposite Party :- Smt. Nisha And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Indra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Hari Shanker Tewari,G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Yogendra Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Indra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Hari Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 and 2 and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present criminal revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Sultanpur in Case No. 2485 of 2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby awarding maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that the revisionist is the husband of opposite party no. 1 Smt. Nisha and father of opposite party no. 2. Both had married on 29.05.2004 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. After marriage opposite party no. 2 started living in her matrimonial home. Immediately after marriage opposite party no. 2 was harassed physically and mentally for demand of dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, opposite party no. 2 was physically assaulted. During this period out of wedlock one daughter opposite party no. 2 born but the physical and mental torture still continued with opposite party no. 2. On 10.07.2011 she was forced to leave her matrimonial house and all the jewellery and other valuable articles were kept by the revisionist and his family members. Thereafter a settlement was also arrived at with the help of villagers and relatives on 16.08.2011 but soon thereafter she was again forcibly evicted from her matrimonial home and threatened with death. Thereafter opposite party no. 2 started living with her parent along with her daughter. She has stated that she has no source of livelihood and in the aforesaid circumstances, she had moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. 4. The trial court had formulated the questions with regard to the factum of marriage between the parties and also the reasons due to which opposite party no. 2 was forced to leave her matrimonial home and also duly considered the question of the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The revisionist had put in appearance before the trial court and opposed the prayer for grant of maintenance. 5. After considering the entire facts and also the financial status of the revisionist, the trial court had granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to opposite party no. 1 Smt. Nisha and Rs.5,000/- to opposite party no. 2 her daughter. 6. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is ready and willing to accept opposite party no. 1 and 2 as his wife and daughter and repeatedly requested her to live in her matrimonial home and she herself responsible for her condition, therefore, she would not be entitled for maintenance. 7. Shri H.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 and 2 has supported the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Sultanpur in Case No. 2485 of 2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 8. After considering the entire facts and material available on record, this Court finds that there is clear allegation of mentally and physically of the opposite party no. 2 with the hands of revisionist that is very reason due to which opposite party no. 2 was forced to leave her matrimonial home along with her minor daughter. 9. It is further noticed that the settlement was arrived at between the parties that the revisionist who did not honour the settlement and opposite party no. 1 was forced to leave her matrimonial home. Apart from above, this Court finds that opposite party no. 1 is not even an educated and literate lady and does not have any source of livelihood and consequently, there is no denial of the fact that the revisionist, who is the husband, is legally and morally bound to support her and maintain her during said period. 10. In light of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Sultanpur in Case No. 2485 of 2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court has duly considered the objections and arguments raised on behalf of the revisionist. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said order requiring interference. 11. Accordingly, this revision being devoid of merits is dismissed. 12. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench