Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138184 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2674 of 2023 Revisionist :- Chintu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Durga Prasad Tiwari,Vinay Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision even in the revised list despite the fact that there two learned counsels appearing in the matter. Sri V.D. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State is present. Perused the record. 3. Even previously on 16.5.2025 also there was no representation from the side of the revisionist but in the interest of justice as a last opportunity the matter was adjourned on the said date. The order passed on 16.5.2025 reads as under:- "1. List revised. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision despite the fact that there are two learned counsels on behalf of the revisionist. Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State is present. 2. Since there is no representation on behalf of the revisionist, in the interest of justice, as a last opportunity, the matter is adjourned for today. 3. Let the matter be listed on 09.07.2025. 4. It is made clear that the matter will not be adjourned on the next date as a matter of right." 4. The Court thus proceeds to decide the matter with the assistance of learned counsel for the State. 5. This revision has been filed by the revisionist Chintu with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 31.3.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. 87 of 2012 (Smt. Pinki vs. Chintu) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Police Station- Surajpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the impugned judgement and order dated 31.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. 87 of 2012, (Smt. Pinki vs. Chintu) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Police Station- Surajpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of present revision before this Hon'ble Court. And/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the revisionist shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 6. The revisionist is husband of the opposite party no. 2. By the order impugned dated 31.3.2023 the court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar allowed the application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the opposite party no. 2 and directed that from the date of filing of the application i.e. 15.5.2012 till the date of decision i.e. 31.3.2023 maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month shall be paid to her by the revisionist within three months. It was further ordered that from the date of decision i.e. 31.3.2023 husband/revisionist shall pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no. 2/wife. The said payment had been directed to be paid by 10th of every month. 7. The facts of the matter are that the revisionist was married to the opposite party no. 2 on 10.12.2010. Some dispute arose between the parties and she left her matrimonial house while being in a state of pregnancy. She then gave birth to daughter on 14.10.2011. A First Information Report was lodged by her against the revisionist/husband and other persons. Her husband is a young man and is employed and also he has business of milk and earns about Rs.30,000/- per month. She moved an application for maintenance claiming Rs.20,000/- per month for herself and her daughter. The case proceeded in which evidence was recorded. Defense evidence was also led. The trial court concerned framed 05 issues and decided the same. The trial court relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha: 2021(1) JIC 1(SC) while deciding the present matter. 8. This Court has perused the impugned judgement and order. The same is on merits and based on logical reasons and sounds principles. There is no illegality and irregularity in the same and as such no interference is called for. 9. Accordingly, the present revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed. 10. Office to communicate this order to the concerned trial court forthwith for information and necessary follow up actions. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 13.8.2025/Naresh Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad