Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:128 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 21 of 2022 Revisionist :- Abdul Hasan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Lal Bahadur Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. None appears for respondent No.2 although notices are served. 2. At the outset, it has been informed that the present revision petition has been filed after delay of 799 days for which an application IA No.1 of 2022 has been filed by revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. 3. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.11.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court Bahraich in Case No.71/11/2017 (Smt. Yasmeen vs. Abdul Hasan) by which the application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed as well as against the judgment and order dated 17.09.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich in Case No.1344/11/2017. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has very fairly admitted that he has not given any single penny from the date of passing of impugned order. 5. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay shows that delay has not been explained by the revisionist properly thus, considering the huge delay in filing the revision petition and improper explanation, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 6. Even otherwise, a perusal of the impugned order shows that it is not disputed that respondent No.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is residing away for sufficient causes. It is also clear that she has no source of income so that she can maintain herself. She appears to be destitute and incapable of maintaining herself thus, considering the above, the impugned order has been passed awarding Rs.3500/- per month maintenance to the respondent No.2 which according to the revisionist has not been paid to her. The relevant part of the impugned order is extracted below:- "11. उक पररचचरर सस सपष हह कक पररररयर कवपकक कक वहधरकनक रप सस कववरकहतर, पतनक हह तरर वह ययककययक कररणण सस कवपकक सस अलग रह रहक हह। इसक पकरर उक पररचचरर सस यह भक सपष हह कक पररररयर कस परस अपनस भरण- पपषण हसतय आय करक कपई सकसरधन नहह हह और वह अपनर भरण- पपषण करनस मम सकम नहह हह जबकक कवपकक कस परस आय कस पयररप शपत हह और वह पररररयर कर भरण- पपषण करनस हसतय उतरदरयक हह। ऐसक ससरकत मम उभयपकण कक आरररक एवक सरमररजक ससरकत कप दकषगत रखतस हहए कवपकक सस पररररयर कप मय०३,५००/- रपयस पकतमरह कक दर सस भरण- पपषण भतर कदलरयर जरनर उकचत हपगर। 12. उपरपकनयसरर पररररयर कर धररर १२५ दक०प०सक० कस अनतगरत पसतयक परररनरपत एकपककय रप सस सवककरर ककयस जरनस यपगय हह। आदसश पररररयर दररर धररर १२५ दक०प०सक० कस अनतगरत पसतयत परररनरपत कवपकक कस कवरद एकपककय रप सस सवककरर ककयर जरतर हह। कवपकक कप कनदरकशत ककयर जरतर हह कक वह आदसश कक कतरर सस पररररयर शकमतक यरसमकन कप मय०३,५००/- रपयस ( तकन हजरर परकच सस रपयस) पकतमरह कक दर सस भरण- पपषण भतर अदर करस। भरण- पपषण भतस कक धनररकश पतयसक मरह कस 7 तररकख कप दसय हपगक।" 7. In view of above, considering the order dated 04.11.2017 by which Rs.3500/- per month maintenance has been awarded to the respondent No.2 as an maintenance so also considering the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that maintenance in all the cases has to be awarded from the date of application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, there is no illegality in it, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 8.Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Sessions Court forthwith. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench