Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4435 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 91 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Kushal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Anshuman Verma, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State. Notices to respondent nos. 2 and 3 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order. The present revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Ist Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Sultanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.426 of 2017, by which application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and an amount of Rs.6000/- per month each has been awarded as maintenance to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the date of filing of application dated 2.5.2017 and the same shall be paid 10th of each and every month. Perused the record. A perusal of the records shows that it is undisputed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are minor legitimate children of the revisionist. He has neglected their maintenance, which issue has been decided in Paragraph 14 by the learned court below. While deciding this issue, the learned court below made a specific finding that since 2014, no payment has been made by the revisionist to his minor children. This fact has also been fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist before this Court. Thus, it has been rightly opined that the revisionist has neglected to maintain his minor children. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are destitute and unable to sustain themselves due to their minority. The revisionist is employed as a Lekhpal. In Paragraph 16 of impugned order a finding has been given by learned court below that the revisionist had not disclosed his immovable property and was trying to hide his actual income. Although, his salary slip shows a salary of Rs.39,440/-, however, he accepted that he gets increment every year, thus, learned trial court had rightly concluded that he is a man of sufficient means. Since, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are legitimate children of the revisionist, who have been neglected by him and they are unable to maintain themselves and no amount has been given to them since 2014 till the passing of the order by learned Family Court and even after passing of the order the amount is not being paid, thus, it has been correctly held by learned court below that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled for maintenance. Considering the salary of both parents and the circumstances noted in the impugned order, the learned court below has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to each of the child until they attained the age of majority, therefore, there appears to be no illegality in the order impugned. The revision, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to learned court below concerned forthwith. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench