Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62168 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 687 of 2024 Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of Up 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Sevak Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the revisionist is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court- 3rd Jaunpur in Case No. 286 of 2015, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are wife and minor son of the revisionist. The marriage was performed in the year 2010 and later on, the opposite party no. 2 started misbehaving with the revisionist and other members of his family and went to live in her maika in the year 2014. No any demand of dowry or harassment was done with her by the revisionist or any members of his family even though she lodged an F.I.R. against the revisionist under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act with false allegations. She is living in her maika without any reasonable excuse with minor son. Further submitted that a petition for divorce was filed by the wife herself which was decreed ex-parte on 27.09.2024 in favour of wife, it also shows that she was not willing to continue relations with the revisionist. The revisionist was running a medical store and making income but from the period of Covid-19, there is no any income from the medical store. He has liability of old parents. Learned trial court did not consider all these facts but allowed the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and fixed the amount of Rs. 8000/- in favour of wife and Rs. 4000/- in favor of minor son from the date of application. This amount is beyond the paying capacity of the revisionist, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and allow the revision. He also submitted that the amount of arrears from the date of application to the date of order be also divide into easy installments for payment. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and the order passed by learned trial court, it appears that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 was married to the revisionist in the year 2010 and from the year 2014 she is living separate from her husband in her maika with minor son due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. During the course of litigation the opposite party no. 2 entered into compromise and went to live with the revisionist on 22.09.2020 but again due to neglect of the husband and other members of his family she came back to her maika. No any money was given by the revisionist either to the opposite party no. 2, wife or opposite party no. 3, minor son from the year 2014 till now for their maintenance. The divorce petition filed by the wife has also been decreed in favour of wife on the ground of cruelty by the revisionist though it has been decided ex-parte but since the revisionist did not appear before the learned trial court despite of notice. In this way, it cannot be said that she is living separate from the husband without any reasonable cause. So far as the economic condition of the revisionist is concerned, the income tax return relating to assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 were filed by the wife before the learned trial court showing that he is income tax payee and operates medical store. In this way, it cannot be said that he has no sufficient means to maintain his wife and child and also make payment of the amount as fixed by the learned trial court. The amount of Rs. 8000/- in favour of wife and Rs. 4000/- in favour of minor son cannot be said to be excessive in view of financial and social status of husband and wife. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance from the date of application to the date of order is concerned, it may be expedient to divide it into equal 12 monthly installments which shall be payable with current amount of maintenance month to month. Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of at the admission stage. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad