Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117580 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 821 of 2025 Revisionist :- Maishan Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shashank Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravindra Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shashank Ojha, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Neelkant Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The present revision under Section 438/422 BNSS has been filed by the revisionist praying for quashing impugned order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court No.03, Allahabad rejecting Misc. Application No.166 of 2024 filed the by revisionist and the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Allahabad in Maintenance Case No.725 of 2021 filed by opposite party no.2, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage of the revusuibust was solemnized with O.P. no.2 on 02.05.2015 but due to matrimonial discord, the wife left the matrimonial house and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein vide order dated 05.08.2024 the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.5,00/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the minor child. He further submitted that the financial status of revisionist is not so sound and the maintenance amount awarded by the court below is on higher side. In the aforesaid backdrop, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently oppose the revision and contend that the Court below has awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month each to the wife and minor son, which is considerably meager amount for the said purpose, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders. 7. Heard learned AGA, counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2875 wherein the Court has held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to ensure that a woman, who has left or thrown out of matrimonial house, can sustain herself and her children. The Court further held that concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean "to lead the life of an animal", rather the wife would be entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. 9. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that filing of this revision is nothing but an abuse of process of law, and there is no merit in this revision. 10. It seems that the instant proceedings have been initiated with the sole intention not to pay the maintenance amount or it has been filed just to delay the payment of maintenance amount to the wife. 11. The instant revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad