HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7906 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State are present. 2. Present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the impugned order dated 30.09.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2025 (Anurag Yadav & Another Vs. Sonal Yadav), u/s 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by which the learned appellate court has rejected the criminal appeal of revisionists and upheld the ex-party order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned trial court. The revisionist has filed revision against and the impugned order dated 21.03.2025, passed by the Judicial Officer, Gram Nyalaya, Mehnagar, Azamgarh, in Case No.03 of 2024 (Sonal Yadav Vs. Anurag Yadav & Others), u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by which learned trial court has directed the revisionist no.1/husband to pay Rs.4000/- to the opposite party no.2/wife towards house rent and Rs.6000/- per month as maintenance, from the date of application (total Rs.10,000/-) and also directed to pay Rs.2 lakh towards section 22 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on 30.11.2020 marriage of revisionist no.1 and opposite party no.2 solemnized in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals. The opposite party no.2 never lived with the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amit Kumar Asthana Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi, G.A. Anurag Yadav And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) revisionists and she is not a victim of domestic violence as alleged, nor has the revisionists ever lived in a shared household with the opposite party no.2. The learned trial court concerned has not considered the fact that the revisionist no.1 is simply a MANREGA labourer and earns just Rs.450/- per day and only on few days he found work, thus he does not earn enough to support the opposite party no.2. Revisionist no.1 is already paying the maintenance awarded under section 125 Cr.P.C. to the opposite party no.2 and thus second maintenance amount under the Domestic Violence Act is not permissible. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel of revisionists and submit that opposite party no.2 family has given a dowry of Rs.2,51,000/- in cash and other expensive household items. After the marriage, the revisionists and his family harassed the opposite party no.2 for bringing insufficient dowry. The opposite party no.2 has become very weak due to the harassment of the revisionist no.1/husband and his family and has become a victim of Domestic Violence and is surviving only on medical treatment. The opposite party no.2 is poorly educated and lacks any skills and is unable to earn a living. The revisionist no.1 is quite wealthy, earning Rs.50,000/- per month from a company and Rs.20,000/- per month from farming. 5. Perusal of the impugned orders dated 30.09.2025 and 21.03.2025 shows that the learned trial court concerned allowed the complaint of the opposite party no.2 under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 primarily on the ground that the revisionists were unable to provide any material fact/inconsistency to the court that he could disprove the allegation of Domestic Violence against the opposite party no.2. The District Probation Officer/Security Officer's report dated 13.09.2023 also corroborates the statements of opposite party no.2. No evidence was produced to contradict the statement of opposite party no.2 regarding the income of the revisionist no.1/husband, therefore it was concluded by the learned trial court that CRLR No. 7906 of 2025 2 revisionist no.1 is capable to provide the maintenance to the opposite party no.2/wife. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the learned trial court concerned directed the revisionist no.1/husband to pay Rs.4000/- to the opposite party no.2/wife towards house rent and Rs.6000/- per month as maintenance, from the date of application (total Rs.10,000/-), from the u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and also directed to pay Rs.2 lakh towards section 22 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The revisionists has not filed any affidavit before the learned trial court in the light of the judgement of Rajnesh vs. Neha (Supra) before the learned trial court and also not filed any recall application for the recalling the ex-party order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned trial court, therefore, the learned trial court impugned order as well as order of appellant court are very well reasoned and justified, therefore, warrants no interference by this Court. 6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2025 (Anurag Yadav & Another Vs. Sonal Yadav), u/s 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the ex- party order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Officer, Gram Nyalaya, Mehnagar, Azamgarh, in Case No.03 of 2024 (Sonal Yadav Vs. Anurag Yadav & Others), u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed. May 14, 2026 VKG CRLR No. 7906 of 2025 3 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad