HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6370 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-husband as well as the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The revisionist-husband preferred the instant revision challenging the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 200 of 2024 titled Smt. Radhika Tiwari v. Naveen Rajoria, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi, whereby the learned Family Court awarded a maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2-wife. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-husband states that that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without applying its judicial mind; failed to appreciate the material on record; the respondent-wife has left the matrimonial home on her own choice; the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and the statement of the revisionist-husband has not been considered; the finding of facts recorded by the Family Court on an evidence are not available on record; the evidence put-forth by the respondent-wife are not admissible; the instant proceedings are abuse of process of law, and the findings are perverse and erroneous. 4. From perusal of the record, it transpires that on 12.05.2013, the parties have solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals, and the parents of respondent-wife has given dowry articles as per their capacity, but the in-laws were not satisfied. After the marriage, the in-laws of respondent- wife started raising dowry demand and torturing her, and forced her to leave her matrimonial home, thereafter litigation started between the parties. On the basis of testimony of the respondent-wife, it reveals that revisionist- husband has doing agricultural work and property dealing from which, the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Parth Goswami, Sanjay Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Naveen Rajouria .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) revisionist-husband earns Rs.50,000/- per month. The record reveals that the husband has not filed the affidavit of assets and liability as mandated by Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324] and this Court in Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi [2023 SCC Online All. 2684] thus, it could safely be assessed that the husband has concealed the actual source of income from his non sources before the Court, thus, Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly come to a conclusion to award Rs.7000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of an application, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. For the aforesaid reasons and having heard learned counsel for the revisionist-husband, and having gone through the record as well as the impugned order, no material illegality or impropriety has been observed by this Court, and this Court cannot go into the re-examination/re-appreciation of the evidence comeforth during the summary proceedings, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. 6. The instant revision petition lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed. 7. However, it is directed to the learned Family Judge to ensure timely execution of impugned order of maintenance dated 05.08.2025 strictly in accordance with Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra), Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi (Supra), and Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P. and another [2024 SCC Online All. 2260], whichever is applicable in the facts- circumstances of the instant case. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith for compliance. October 17, 2025 Shafique CRLR No. 6370 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad