HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1631 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. In Re: Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sufficient. 3. Accordingly, the delay in filing the revision is condoned. 4. The application stands allowed. In Re: Criminal Revision 5. The present criminal revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Azamgarh in Maintenance Case No. 2100953 of 2019, titled Babita Gupta and Another v. Manish Sahu, as well as the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Azamgarh, on the application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-husband submits that the opposite party no. 2-wife is residing in her parental home along with her daughter (opposite party no. 3). It is contended that the revisionist has always been willing to resume cohabitation, but the wife has refused to live with him. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is a well-educated lady and is running a beauty parlour, earning sufficient income to maintain herself. However, these aspects were not duly considered by the learned Family Court. The revisionist, on the other hand, is a labourer assisting his brother in a cloth shop. 7. When queried as to whether the revisionist has filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], learned counsel for the revisionist could not Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anurag Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Manish Sahu .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) furnish any satisfactory reply. 8. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the requisite affidavit of assets and liabilities has not been filed along with the revision. The present revision is liable to be dismissed on two grounds; (i) Non-compliance with the mandatory guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra); and (ii) Failure of the revisionist to pay any maintenance amount to the destitute wife till date. 9. Apart from the above, no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety has been demonstrated in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. 10. Consequently, the criminal revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. October 13, 2025 Shafique CRLRD No. 1631 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad