Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23864 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 883 of 2024 Revisionist :- Ranjeet Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Bahar Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Gupta Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Bahar Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA on behalf of the respondent as well as perused the record. 2. Previously on the request of the revisionist, the matter was referred for mediation but the report of the mediator has been submitted on 07.01.2025 indicating that 'no agreement has been arrived at during mediation proceedings.' 3. In the present revision, the order of the Family Court dated 04.06.2024 has been assailed in proceeding under Sections 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance to opposite party no.2, his wife @ Rs.3,000/- per month and respondent no.3, his daughter @ Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of the application. 4. In the present case, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondents no.2 and 3 stating that respondent no.2 was married to the revisionist on 05.06.2015 and right from the date of the marriage, she was tortured for not bringing adequate dowry. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, she moved an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Principle Judge, Family Court, Sitapur bearing Criminal Misc. Case No.842 of 2022, Smt. Sapna Gautam and another versus Ranjeet Kumar. The revisionist had appeared before the trial court and opposed the said application. 5. It was submitted by the counsel for the revisionist that he is ready and willing to keep the opposite party no.2 in his house but she has refused to live with him and has deserted the matrimonial home and started living with her parents house and only on account of the fact that she has refused to live with the revisionist, opposed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 6. The Civil Judge, Family Court had duly considered the rival contentions and has recorded that the revisionist and his family members demanded dowry, including one plot and a car from the parents of opposite party no.2. Due to the fact that the demand of dowry was not fulfilled they started mentally and physically torturing to opposite party no.2 and during this period opposite party no.3 was born on 26.11.2019. Opposite party No. 2 was forcibly evicted from the matrimonial home subsequent to which she started living with her parents. Certain settlement was arrived at while she again accepted to live with the revisionist but his attitude did not change and consequently, she was again evicted from the matrimonial home forcibly by the revisionist and his family. She has categorically stated that she does not want to live with the revisionist as husband and wife because of the physical tortured being meted out to her and accordingly, during the proceedings the mother of the opposite party no.2 had also appeared and given a statement in favour of contention raised by opposite party no.2 and after considering the entire facts aspect of the fact allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.PC. It was duly considered that the revisionist is earning about Rs.60,000/- a month and he owns a shop and four wheeler vehicle which are given on rent and is earning a large amount of income from them. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, has been duly noticed and considered. 7. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the trial court has fully appreciated the facts and granted maintenance in favour of opposite parties no2 and 3, no other ground was raised by the revisionist to oppose the said order dated 04.06.2024. Accordingly, I find that adequate and cogent reasons have been given and all the material facts have been considered while allowing the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. there is no allegation that the order is perverse and contrary to any fact and accordingly I do not find any ground for interference in the same. 8. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 25.4.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench