Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117293 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1015 of 2025 Revisionist :- Sayyad Baqar Ali Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anuj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sarvajeet Singh 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 Sarvajeet Singh, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 3 are present. 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 03.02.2025 has granted maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to opposite party no.2, wife and Rs.1500/- per month to minor son i.e. opposite party nos.3, which has been assailed by means of this revision. 5. This revision has been filed by the applicant for quashing the order dated 03.02.2025 on the ground that the revisionist is a labour and earns only Rs.42,000/- per years, hence, he is not in position to pay the maintenance granted by the family Court. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 3 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 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. reported in (AIR 1997 SC 3397 has held as follows:- "The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 it has held that:- "Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal[15] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves." 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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