Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74623 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 537 of 2024 Revisionist :- Atul Kumar Pankaj Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the learned court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Case No.112 of 2007 (Mamta Rani and another vs. Atul Kumar Pankaj) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Nagina, District Bijnor. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party no.3 is minor daughter of the revisionist. Further submitted that opposite party no.2 was married in the year 2004 and from the wedlock opposite party no.3 the minor child was born. She further submits that the revisionist always well behaved with the wife but she herself was negligent and not willing to live with him. The allegations made by the wife are totally false. Neither any dowry was given by her parents nor any such demand was made by the revisionist. The revisionist kept his wife conveniently and he never subjected her to harassment but she used to go anywhere without telling about the place to him. When this habit was objected by the revisionist she started quarreling with him and went to her maika with her own free will. The revisionist tried his best to bring her back but she refused to come with him. In this regard a case under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act was filed which was decreed even though she did not come to live with him. She also submitted that the revisionist is M.C.A. degree holder but now he is unemployed and not working as engineer in any company. Even he is not teaching tuition classes to the students so there is no any income of the revisionist and he has old mother and other members in the family to support. She also submits that the opposite party no.2 herself is M.A. & B.Ed. and she was working as teacher in M.M. Inter College and getting Rs.2500/- per month by teaching but later on she quit the job only for the purpose of making harassment of the husband/revisionist. The learned trial court passed the order dated 29.11.2023 while awarding the amount of maintenance Rs.2500/- per month in favour of the wife from the date of application to the date of order and then from the date of order Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.3000/- in favour of minor child total Rs.8000/- per month which is in excess, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 29.11.2023 and reduce the amount and divide the amount of arrears into easy installments. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by learned trial court, admittedly opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party no.3 is minor daughter of the revisionist. The marriage was performed in the year 2004 and till the year 2007 she lived with him and from the wedlock opposite party no.3 was born. Due to misbehaviour on the part of revisionist and neglect in maintaining her she went to live in her maika and since then she is living there and she is not able to maintain herself alongwith opposite party no.3, the minor daughter. She worked as teacher M.M. Inter College, Nagina, Bijnor at rate of Rs.2500/- per month from the year 2020 to 2022 under the management scheme but now she is not teaching there and not making income Rs.10,000/- as stated by the revisionist. The revisionist is M.C.A. degree holder and is able to earn handsome income and also working as engineer but has not disclosed this fact before the learned trial court only to avoid the liability to maintain his wife and minor child. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.2500/- per month from the date of application to the date of order in favour of wife which cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient but is meagre. Likewise, the amount of maintenance Rs.5000/- per month from the date of order in favour of wife and Rs.3000/- per month in favour of minor child can also not be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. In this way, the learned trial court has passed the order in question dated 29.11.2023 after taking into account the circumstances of the case, material on record, documentary and oral evidence available on record which cannot be said to be illegal. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. So far as the amount of arrears is concerned, it may be divided into 24 equal installments for easy payment alogwith the current amount of maintenance. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of finally. Date :- 8.5.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad