Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119199 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1238 of 2025 Revisionist :- Shashank Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pt. S.P. Sharma Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. No one has put appearance on behalf of the revisionist even in the revised call of the cause list. Whereas Shri Pt. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is present alongwith learned AGA for the State- opposite party no. 1. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the impugned recovery order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal judge, Family Court, Jhansi as well as order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 1085 of 2021 (Smt. Sadhna Kumari Vs. Shashank Sharma), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi during the pendency of the present criminal revision. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present criminal revision are that, opposite party no. 2, is duly wedded wife of revisionist, and opposite party no. 3, is his minor daughter. Due to matrimonial discord opposite party no. 2 was thrown from her matrimonial house. Opposite party no. 2 had filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist on behalf of her and her minor daughter opposite party no. 3, on the premises that revisionist is running a clinic and medical store in his house, therefore, has sufficient means and legal, social and moral obligation to maintain them, has neglected them, as a result they are living separately from him. Family Court after due deliberation of the facts accorded maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3. As the revisionist was not paying the maintenance to his wife and daughter as awarded by the Family Court, opposite party no. 2 filed an application Exhibit 45-B before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, which has been allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 and issued recovery warrant against the revisionist. The same has been challenged by means of this criminal revision. 4. The recovery has been challenged by the revisionist on the ground that he has not neglected opposite party nos. 2 and 3, rather it is opposite party no. 2, who has neglected his family members and is living separately from him in her parental house along with minor daughter. It was also the case of the revisionist that, he was always ready to keep opposite party no. 2 and 3 in his house and maintain them, but deliberately they are not living with him and have filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed and revisionist was directed to pay maintenance. It is averred in the revision petition that revisionist is sole bread earner of his family and bearing all the expenses including medical treatment of his old mother. It is also averred that opposite party no. 2 has solemnized second marriage with some one else and divorce decree has already been passed in favour of the revisionist, hence opposite party no. 2 is not entitled for maintenance, in this background, the order passed by the Family Court on an application i.e. Exhibit 45-B for recovery of the maintenance is unjust, improper and liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality in the finding returned by learned Principal Judge, Family Court on an application i.e. Exhibit 45-B, whereby the claim of the opposite party no. 2 with regard to dues of maintenance, has been considered and warrant was issued for recovery of nine month dues of maintenance against the revisionist, with the reasoning that opposite party no. 2 is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter, whereas revisionist, who is not only legally, socially and morally duty bound to maintain them but has also sufficient means for the same, is unnecessarily avoiding to maintain them. In this background, he submits that the revision should be dismissed. 6. It is not disputed before this Court that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and opposite party no. 3 is his minor daughter. It is also not disputed that revisionist is running clinic and medical store in his house and have sufficient means of income. 7. I have occasion to peruse the judgement and order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court and has no hesitation to say that learned Principal Judge has given a categorical finding therein that opposite party no. 2, who is duly wedded wife of the revisionist and the mother of minor daughter, being forced, living separately from the revisionist and has no sufficient means to maintain herself and her minor daughter, whereas revisionist has income from clinic and medical store running in his house and thus has the sufficient means to maintain them, but the same was denied by the revisionist on the premise that opposite party no. 2 has solemnized second marriage, hence she is not entitled for maintenance, however in absence of documentary evidence, the ground taken by the revisionist not to pay the maintenance is baseless. However, finding return by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court while allowing the application i.e Exhibit 45B of the opposite party no. 2 and issued recovery warrant against the revisionist is justified and needs no interference by this Court, as the present criminal revision seems to have been filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings and is nothing but a ploy of not paying the maintenance, which the Court had ordered. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to record my concurrence with the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist on the finding returned by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi that it is adverse to the pleadings and evidence, contrarily it is as per pleadings and evidence and therefore needs no interference in the revision. 9. In the result, revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad