Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18896 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 277 of 2025 Revisionist :- Deepu Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajmal Khan,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saroj Yadav,Yaduvansh Mani Singh Yadav Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Javed Khan, holding brief of Sri Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Yaduvansh Mani Singh Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. A perusal of the previous order of this Court dated 06.03.2025 indicates that the revisionist has informed this Court that in all likelihood the dispute between the parties shall be settled through mediation and consequently, it was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within a period of 15 days. 3. When the matter has been taken today, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the revisionist that due to poor financial condition of the revisionist, he is not in a position to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. It is noticed that on an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the trial court has directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party no.2, who is the wife of the revisionist and Rs.1,000/-each to opposite parties no.3 and 4, who are the minor sons of the revisionist. The revisionist has not paid any amount to the opposite parties and the outstanding amount currently would be more than Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore, Rs.1,00,000/- was directed to be deposited to show the bonafide of the revisionist for entering into the settlement. 5. Considering the fact that revisionist has not deposited the said amount, we do not find it a fit case for reference to mediation and accordingly the prayer of the revisionist in this regard is rejected. 6. By means of the present revision, the revisionist has assailed the validity of the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.15,00/-each to opposite parties no.3 and 4, who are the minor sons of the revisionist. 7. A perusal of the order indicates that the revisionist was married to opposite party no.2 on 28.05.2006 according to the Hindu rites and rituals and at the time of marriage, the parents of opposite party no.2 had given dowry according to the status and financial resources and the opposite party no.2 started living in her matrimonial home. From the very start, there was a demand for dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and as the said amount could not be paid by the parents of the opposite party no.2, she was continuously physically and mentally harassed and torture. It has also been alleged that the revisionist is having relationship with another woman and the opposite party no.2 has caught both of them in compromising position and when she has found out about the relationship, he has threatened her dire consequences and also death. It has further been stated that he is regular drinker and after intoxication proceeds to abuse opposite party no.2 physically and mentally. Apart from the above, he has also attempted to kill the opposite party no.2 by pouring kerosene over her. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed. 8. The revisionist, on the other hand, is running a Pan Shop and is earning about about Rs.60,000/- per month. Before the trial court, the revisionist has put in appearance and opposed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and has stated that the allegations levelled by the opposite party no.2 were false and misconceived. 9. Considering the rival contentions, the Principal Judge, Family Court had duly taken into account the fact that the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 are husband and wife. It has also been taken into account the fact that after ten years of marriage, they were blessed with a son and they have now two children and there are valid reasons for opposite party no.2 and her children to live separately from the revisionist on account of the fact that she is continuously and regularly being harassed physically and mentally tortured on account of not bringing adequate amount of dowry and also that the revisionist is having illicit relation with another woman. The court has also duly considered the fact that the revisionist is a person of sound financial background and owned six bighas of agricultural land and is running a Pan Shop and no document or evidence was adduced by him regarding his inability to maintain the opposite parties no.2, 3 and 4. It is only after due consideration of the entire facts, the trial court has directed to revisionist to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.15,00/-each to opposite parties no.3 and 4. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and neither it can be said that the grant of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,500/- maintenance to the wife and sons of the revisionist, is on the higher side. 10. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the case. The revision is accordingly, dismissed. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 4.4.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench