Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37667 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4786 of 2023 Revisionist :- Ahmad Raza Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Maiku Lal Maurya,Pramod Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,M. Asif Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.6.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Maintenance Case No. 167 of 2020 (Smt. Mahira Ahmadi and two others Versus Ahmad Raza Khan), under Section 125 CrPC, whereby application filed by respondents has been allowed and revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 7000/- as maintenance to the respondents from the date of filing application. I. e. 15.6.2020. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the matter was referred for mediation to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court vide order dated 31.10.2023 but mediation has ultimately failed. He next submits that respondent no. 2, who is wife of revisionist, had abandoned him out of her free will and choice and she shifted to her parental place and is residing there. The revisionist made several efforts to take her back along with two minor children to his place but she did not acceded his request and is continuing to live at her parental place. Revisionist has filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rites and the same was decreed ex parte against respondent no. 2 nonetheless she did not unite with the revisionist and is still continuing to live at her parental place. The respondent no. 2 has wrongly averred before the trial court that the revisionist operates a gift shop and runs a Madarsa. In fact, he is a worker in the said shop and Madarsa is operated by his sisters. Only due to the fact that on the sign board of Madarsa, mobile phone number and name of the revisionist is somewhere mentioned, it cannot be presumed that he operates Madarsa. No document has been filed by respondent no. 2 in support of this claim. He next submits that the respondent no. 2 has been living separately from the revisionist without any sufficient cause, therefore, the claim is barred under Section 125 (4) CrPC and she is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the revisionist. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the court below has allowed the claim of respondent seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son and minor daughter without considering the evidence appearing on record in right perspective. The revisionist was taking care of his children but respondent no. 2 forcibly took away children from the custody of the father. The matrimonial discord took place between the spouse since the year, 2018, i. e. after five years of their marriage. The respondent no. 2 herself is an earning lady. She earns around Rs. 20,000/- per month from the job of stitching, weaving and embroidery. The revisionist is a person of meagre financial sources and is not able to pay Rs. 7000/- as maintenance . The shop, namely, Raza Gift Store, belongs to some other person, who is not the member of revisionist's family. The court below has awarded maintenance to the applicants without assessing income of the revisionist and impugned order is based upon the presumption that the revisionist being able bodied person, is under obligation to maintain his wife and children. The impugned order is vitiated by legal error and is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has submitted that the revisionist has deliberately concealed his income to avoid the demand of her wife and two minor children. He is the main person who operates Madarsa and no document has been filed by the revisionist in support of his claim that the said Madarsa has been closed now. He is having sufficient financial resources and earns sufficiently from different sources of income. Due to ill treatment, violence and harassment caused by the revisionist, the respondent no. 2 was complelled to leave her matrimonial place along with her two minor children. She was harassed by the revisionist and his family members due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- The revisionist got himself examined as D. W. 1 and has stated in his evidence before the Court that Raza Gift Shop belongs to his father and he is the only son of his father. She has stated in the application for maintenance that the revisionist committed unnatural sex with her against her wish. She was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the revisionist. The impugned order is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and needs no interference in this revision. 6. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material and evidence on record and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I find no illegality in the impugned judgement and order and amount of maintenance awarded by the impugned judgement and order is just and fair. This is minimum amount which is needed to the respondent no. 2 for maintenance of herself and her two children in the present market condition. 7. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 HR Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad