Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17639 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 352 of 2025 Revisionist :- Daya Singh @ Daya Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sangeeta Singh,Ishika Srivastava,Simi Jha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Mr. Mohd. Abbas Rizvi, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 today in Court is taken on record. 2. Heard Ms. Sangeeta Singh, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Mohd. Abbas Rizvi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the material available on record. 3. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Barabanki whereby application preferred under Section 145 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been allowed with the cost of Rs.15,000/-. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that opposite party no. 2, who alleges herself to be wife of the revisionist, had moved an application for maintenance under Section 144 (3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (125 Cr.P.C.) on which the trial court by means of order dated 17.01.2025 has passed an order for payment of Rs.5000/- per month. Subsequently, when the revisionist came to know about the said application moved under Section Section 145 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. In the said application, it was stated that firstly; the revisionist was not aware of the proceedings under Section 144 (3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (125 Cr.P.C.) and even otherwise had stated that the opposite party no. 2 is not legally wife of the revisionist. On considering the application under Section 145 (2) of the of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the trial court has allowed the said application at the cost of Rs.15,000/-. 5. It is noticed that the revisionist has not complied with the order under Section 144 (3) of the of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 till date, according to which, outstanding amount against the revisionist would be more than Rs.65,000/- while only Rs.15,000/- has been imposed upon the revisionist. Considering the fact that once the application is allowed, the revisionist would be entitled to lead all evidence and submission in his defence opposing the application under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 6. The only grievance raised by the revisionist in the present revision is with regard to the imposition of cost of Rs.15,000/-. Considering the entire facts of the case and also that the order of maintenance was passed on 17.01.2025, the revisionist has not paid the said amount and the outstanding amount seems to be Rs.65,000/-, accordingly, this Court does not find that Rs.15,000/- cost is excessive or requires any interference. 7. In light of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and the same is hereby dismissed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 27.3.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench