1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49274 Court No. - 76 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3246 of 2025 Petitioner :- Amit Kumar @ Amit Tomar Respondent :- Smt Neelam And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Dwivedi,Kamla Shanker Pathak Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record. 2. The instant petition is heard and decided on the first date of hearing without issuing any notice to the respondent-wife, because of the reasons; (i) a short issue of award of maintenance to the estranged wife is involved, (ii) it's observed in Rajnesh v. Neha1 case that maintenance is a social measure to prevent wives and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy, (iii) if maintenance is not paid timely, it defeats the very object of the social welfare legislation, (iv) the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 05.11.2019 and was decided on 08.01.2025, since then not even a single penny has been paid to the respondent-wife. 3. The instant petition has been preferred assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 08.01.2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Original Suit No. 930 of 2019, titled as Smt. Neelam & Ors. v. Amit Tomar, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that respondent-wife had preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for award of maintenance on 05.11.2019. The Principal Judge, Family Court, after conducting summary proceedings, awarded 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 2 Rs.9000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife and her children from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist-husband is that being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.01.2025, he has preferred the instant petition on the ground inter-alia stating that the family court has passed the order in a mechanical manner without applying its judicial mind; failed to appreciate the material on record; the respondent-wife has left the matrimonial home on her own choice; the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, the finding of facts recorded by the Family Court on an evidence are not available on record; the evidence put-forth by the respondent-wife are not admissible; the instant proceedings are abuse of process of law, and the findings are perverse and erroneous. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that on 05.02.2016 the parties have solemnized their marriage as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and the parents of respondent-wife has given dowry articles as per their capacity, but the in-laws were not satisfied. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children. After a long time of marriage, the petitioner-husband and his family members started torturing her and raising demand of dowry, and forced her to leave her matrimonial home, thereafter litigation started between the parties. On the basis of testimony of the respondent-wife, it reveals that the petitioner-husband doing a job in Minda Company, and also owned agricultural land, by which he earns Rs.50,000/- per month. The petitioner-husband has not filed the affidavit of assets and liability as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) case, thus, it can safely be presumed that the husband has concealed the actual source of income from his non sources before the Court, thus, Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly come to a conclusion that the petitioner-husband has sufficient means to pay Rs.9000/- per month as maintenance to the 3 respondent-wife and her children from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. For the aforesaid reasons and having heard learned counsel for the parties, and having gone through the record as well as the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner-husband has not complied with the mandate of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. case (supra) during the trial. No material illegality or impropriety has been observed by this Court, and this Court cannot go into the re- examination/re-appreciation of the evidence comeforth during the summary proceedings, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. 8. The instant petition lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed. 9. However, it is directed to the learned Family Judge to ensure timely execution of impugned order of maintenace dated 08.01.2025 strictly in accordance with Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. case (supra), and Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P. and another2 case, whichever is applicable in the facts-circumstances of the instant case. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith for compliance. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Shafique Justice Vinod Diwakar 2. 2024 SCC OnLine All 2260 Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad