HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2878 of 2023 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Aditya Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 3. The present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the revisionist-Vipin Yadav @ Seetu @ Vipin with the prayer to allow this revision and set-aside the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah u/s 125 Cr.P.C. (Maintenance) in Case No.640 of 2018 (Smt. Geeta Vs. Vipin Yadav @ Seetu), Police Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah. 4. This revision is connected with Application U/S 482 No.44419 of 2023, Vipin Yadav @ Situ @ Vipin Singh and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others. The matters have been nominated to this Bench vide order dated 29.4.2024 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice after being placed by the office along with it's office report dated 27.04.2024 after connecting both the matters. 5. The facts of the case are that an application dated 6.10.2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist with the prayer that Rs.20,000/- be awarded as maintenance to her from the date of application. The marriage of the revisionist with opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 11.05.2018 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. In the marriage, gifts, dowry and streedhan were given after which on 12.05.2018, the opposite party no.2 was sent in vidai to her maternal house. The accused Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aditya Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manish Yadav Vipin Yadav @ Seetu @ Vipin .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) persons were not satisfied with the said gifts and there was demand of Rs.2 lakh as additional dowry from her and they started torture and harassment to her. On 17.09.2018 at about 4 p.m., the in-laws of the opposite party no.2 and her husband assaulted her and threw her out of the house. Her husband was working as a teacher in a private school and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and was also teaching tuition from which he earns Rs.20,000/- per month. He has two buffalo from which he earns Rs.5,000/- per month. The father-in-law of the opposite party no.2 has agricultural land from which there is also income of Rs.2 lakh per annum. She then prayed for maintenance from her husband. A written statement to the same dated 20.09.2019 was filed by the revisionist. The Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah vide judgement and order dated 16.02.2023 allowed the said application of the wife and directed that the revisionist shall pay Rs.5,000/- per month to her as maintenance which was directed to be paid in the first week of every month. Aggrieved by the same, the husband preferred the present revision before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is an unemployed person having no source of income and as such the judgement and order impugned is bad in the eye of law and deserves to be set-aside. It is further submitted that even in para 14 of the written statement allegations of adultery has been levelled against the wife which also when considered do not attract paying of any amount of maintenance. It is further submitted that there is no such school as mentioned in the plaint in which the revisionist is working, as such the revision be allowed and the judgement and order be set- aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/wife and learned counsel for the State have been heard. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the revisionist is the husband of the opposite party no.2 who has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to her. In so far as the factum of marriage is concerned, the same is not denied. The judgement and order passed is a detailed and well considered judgement and order considering every fact of the matter and also taking a reasonable view after framing issues in it. The judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha : (2021) 2 SCC 324 has also been considered by the CRLR No. 2878 of 2023 2 court concerned and then the impugned judgement and order has been passed. Considering the same, no ground exists to entertain the revision. 9. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed. September 22, 2025 Gaurav Kuls CRLR No. 2878 of 2023 3 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad