Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6605 Court No. - 30 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 126 of 2025 Revisionist :- Kripa Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Harish Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard Shri Harish Chandra, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Shri Girjesh Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party No.1 and perused the material placed on record. 2. This criminal revision under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Gonda in Criminal Case No.616/2023 (Smt. Raj Kumari @ Sangeeta and Another vs. Kripa Ram) under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. by which the recovery warrant has been issued against the revisionist. 3. Submission made by the counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a very poor person having no source of income and he has been unable to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to the opposite party No.2 (wife) and Rs.1500/- to the opposite party No.3 (daughter). He further submitted that the family court has not considered that the opposite party no.2 (wife) is living separately from the revisionist without any reasonable reason so she is not liable to get any maintenance from the revisionist. After recording the statements of the contesting parties, without considering the facts and evidence on record allowed the application of the opposite party no.2 and awarded Rs. 4000/- per month to the wife-opposite party No.2 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the daughter of the revisionist-oppostie party No.3 from the date of the application. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 and 3 have filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. on 06.06.2023 and the Family Court concerned has issued recovery warrant against the revisionist, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. stated that the family court concerned passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the revisionist and opposite party no.2 and 3 and also taking note of the fact that the revisionist was not paying the maintenance to the wife and daughter, in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court finds that counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs. 4000/- per month to the wife-opposite party No.2 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the daughter of the revisionist-opposite party No.3, which in the present days of high price rise cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate and the revisionist failed to pay maintenance to his daughter and wife. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succor to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which has been wrongly denied. The fact that the revisionist is the husband of opposite party No.2 and father of opposite party No.3 has not been denied. 6. In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process. 7. In view of the above, this revision lacks merit and stands dismissed. [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] Order Date :- 30.1.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench