Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16031 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 134 of 2025 Revisionist :- Awasthi Pankaj Veer Prakash @ Pankaj Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay,Amit Kumar Pal,Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Punit Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of present revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family court, Raebareli in Case No. 902/2022 (Smt. Anuradha Dwivedi Vs. Awasthi Pankj Veer Prakash @ Pankaj Awasthi) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. granting maintenance for Rs. 2000/- per month. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that revisionist is a practicing advocate in the Civil Court, Lucknow and does not have sufficient income so as to pay the amount directed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Reabareli. 4. Apart from the above, it has been submitted that in proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was directed to be granted to the respondent No. 2 who is the wife of the revisionist for legal expenses. 5. According to the revisionist, the said amount has already been granted and in the aforesaid circumstances, he submits that he does not have resources to pay the said amount and further time may be granted to the revisionist to pay the said amount. 6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the revision and has submitted that Rs. 2000/- per month is a very meagre amount which has been granted by the trial court in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has further been stated that trial court has also considered the contention of the revisionist as well as taken into account various legal provisions and accordingly submits that no interference is required to be made in the impugned order. 7. I have heard rival contention of the parties. It is noticed that revisionist is practicing advocate in the Civil Court while respondent No. 2 is his legally wedded wife who is living separately and she does not have any other person to support her inasmuch as her father is also expired and in the aforesaid circumstances has made an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. The trial court has awarded an amount of Rs. 2000/- by order dated 23.12.2024 which in any case is a very meagre amount which has been contested by the petitioner in the present proceeding.The only reason for filing the present revision is the lack of financial resources of the revisionist. The revisionist is an Advocate in the Civil Court and therefore it is not believable that he would not have financial capacity to pay Rs, 2000/- to his wife, while the private respondent has stated that he is earning between Rs. 50,000/- - Rs. 60,000/- per month. 8. There is no material on record to demonstrate the financial resources of the revisionist except his statement on affidavit. accordingly this Court does not find any cogent reason to interfere in teh order of the trial court. 8. After considering the entire facts as well as legal provisions, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. The order passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is for legal expenses which has been passed in favour of respondent No. 2 and is not in the shape of maintenance which may have any bearing in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. No other ground has been urged on behalf of the revisionist for assailing the order impugned. Accordingly, the present revisionist is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench