Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117501 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1006 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Agnivesh,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. List revised. 2. None appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. 3. Shri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State respondents and Sri Puneet Bhadauria, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 4. This is a case where opposite party no.2 happens to be the wife of the revisionist and due to matrimonial discord, opposite party no.2 had left the matrimonial home and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from her husband in which the Family Court vide order dated 19.12.2024 has granted maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to opposite party no.2, wife, which has been assailed by means of this revision. 5. This revision has been filed by the applicant for quashing the order dated 19.12.2024 on the ground that the opposite party no.2 herself left the matrimonial house and she is working as Shiksha Mitra and fully able to maintain herself, hence, no maintenance is required to her. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for opposite party nos.2 contend that there is no illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the order passed by the court below, hence, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order. He further pointed out that till date the revisionist has not paid the maintenance amount and has preferred the instant revision before this Court with sole intention to delay or avoid the payment of maintenance amount. 7. Heard learned AGA, counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2005 SC 1809 has held that:- "……..., it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. 9. The High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash reported in AIR 1968 Delhi 174 has held that:- " "An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him." 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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