HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8533 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Ms. Sakshi Patel, learned counsel for the for revisionist and learned AGA for the State are present. 2. None appears on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 and 3, even in the revised call. 3. As per office report dated 21.04.2026, notice has served upon opposite party nos.2 and 3, but no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 as yet. Hence the Court proceeds to hear the matter with the assistance of learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 4. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Jaunpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.1635 of 2020(Kiran Maurya and others Vs. Mukesh Maurya), by which the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., moved by the opposite party nos.2 & 3, was partly allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, from the date of application i.e. 14.10.2020 and Rs.1000/- per month to the opposite party no.3/minor son, as maintenance, from the date when his impleaded as party in the application i.e. 20.06.2022. 5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that marriage between the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sakshi Patel, Shiv Naresh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mukesh Maurya .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) revisionist and opposite party nos.2 was solemnized on 29.04.2018 in accordance with Hindu Rituals and Rites. Opposite party no.2 without any valid and sufficient reason, does not want to live with the revisionist and is of stubborn nature. She has been living at her paternal home without any reasonable grounds at her own sweet will. Due to lockdown, the revisionist became financially strapped and and left the revisionist. The revisionist is ready to maintain the opposite party nos.2 and 3 according to his financial status but the impugned order directing the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party no.3 is beyond his financial capacity. 6. Per contra, learned AGA for the state vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel of revisionist and submit that after the marriage, the opposite party no.2 was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry and neglected the basic needs for food and clothes. On 06.10.2020, at around 10:00 P.M. demanding the additional dowry, the revisionist and his family members brutally kicked and punched the opposite party no.2 and drove her out of the house in her clothes, threatening to kill her if she returned home without one lakh rupees and an Apache motorcycle. The learned trial court has rightly granted maintenance amount to the opposite party nos.2 and 3. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 shows that the learned trial court allowed the application for maintenance u/s 125 C.r.P.C primarily on the ground that the husband has a responsibility to provide a happy home for his wife and child. From all these facts, it is clear that the opposite party no.2 was beaten and tortured for dowry, which is why she and opposite party no.3 are living separately from the revisionist. Opposite party no.2 possesses no skills other than housework. Contrary to this, the revisionist has not made any statement regarding the income of opposite party no.2 in its affidavit, which appears to suggest that the revisionist is implicitly admitting that the opposite party no.2 possesses no skills. Thus, the opposite party no.2 is incapable to support herself and opposite party no.3 on her own. The revisionist is a labourer and is capable of earning income. Relying on the CRLR No. 8533 of 2025 2 case of, Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that it is the husband's duty to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to earn a living and is unable to support her due to financial constraints the learned trial court concerned directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, from the date of application i.e. 14.10.2020 and Rs.1000/- per month to the opposite party no.3/minor son, as maintenance, from the date when his impleaded as party in the application i.e. 20.06.2022. The learned trial court impugned order is very well reasoned and justified, therefore, warrants no interference by this Court. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order dated 25.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Jaunpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.1635 of 2020(Kiran Maurya and others Vs. Mukesh Maurya), by which the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed. May 13, 2026 VKG CRLR No. 8533 of 2025 3 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad