Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 600 of 2024 Revisionist :- Subhash Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Singh,Upendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for respondent State and learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 13.3.2024 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar in Case No.378 of 2017 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The relevant part of the order impugned is extracted below:- "On the basis of above laws laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court it is crystal clear that it is moral, social and legal obligation of the OP to maintain his legally wedded wife and legitimate minor sons. Point no.3 has been decided in affirmative by holding that monthly income of the OP is at least Rs. 25,000/-. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be legally inferred that there is any liability of OP except the petitioners. Therefore, having considered the socio-economic conditions of the parties and evidence available on record it will be proper and lawful to award Rs. 5,000/- per month to the petitioner no.1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the petitioner no, 2 & 3 each till attainment of age of majority. Meaning thereby petitioner no.1 is entitled for Rs. 5,000/- per month and petitioner no. 2 &3 are entitled for Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance from OP. Accordingly, the petition deserved to be allowed. Order Petition is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to petitioner no.1 as maintenance from the date of petition. OP is directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- p.m. each of the petitioner no. 2 &3 as maintenance till they attaining the age of majority. OP is directed to pay the aforesaid maintenance amount by 10th of every month. Arrear maintenance amount will be paid in three equal installments within three months. Any interim maintenance received by the petitioners during the pendency of the petition will be adjusted in computing arrear arrear amount amount." Perusal of the record shows that it is not in dispute that respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife and the revisionist nos. 3 and 4 are the minor children of the revisionists. While deciding issue no.3, it has been proved that the revisionist has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners. He has not even cross examined the P.W.1. The revisionist and D.W.1 has admitted that the revisionist used to work in Supreme Company Gwalior and also doing agricultural work. The issue no.4 as to whether the revisionist has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner, has also been proved. Since 1.6.2017 the revisionist has not taken care of the petitioners nor paid money to the petitioner towards their maintenance. He has not discharged his obligation for maintaining his wife and children. During the course of the arguments before this Court also nothing could be shown from the record by the revisionist that he has paid any amount to his destitute wife and children. There appears to be no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench