HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1358 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. List revised. None appeared for the opposite party no. 2 even in the revised call. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Case No. 33 of 2018 (Smt. Roobi Versus Shyam Sundar) under Section 125 Cr. P.C., Police Station Ghiror, District Mainpuri, by which the learned Court concerned has rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 125 Cr. P.C. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case she is wedded wife of the opposite party no.2, whose marriage was performed in the year 2014. She was living at the matrimonial house where she was tortured and harassed by her husband and her mother-in- law. Under compulsion, she started living in her maika and filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for maintenance. She is willing to live with the opposite party no.2 but he is not ready to take her with him. Learned trial court has passed the order dated 02.01.2025, by which he rejected the application on the ground that revisionist is not willing to live with the opposite party no.2. This fact has been recorded erroneously by the learned trial court without considering the entire statement of the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sant Ram Nigam, Vivek Kumar Yadav Smt. Roobi .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) revisionist as recorded before the learned trial court during her examination. She also submitted that she is unable to maintain herself and having no source of income. 5. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 has admitted in his affidavit that he makes earning Rs.10,000/- per month by selling bangles, though he is paralysed with both hands, therefore, request to set aside the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned trial court and to allow the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. by fixing reasonable amount of maintenance. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the opposite party no.2 is husband of revisionist, but he is paralysed with both hands and is not able to make earning. The revisionist herself is not ready to live with him that is the reason, learned trial court has rejected the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. since she is living in maika without any sufficient cause, in this way, there appears no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by learned trial court, it appears that learned trial court has rejected the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. filed by the revisionist on the ground that she is not willing to live with the opposite party no.2. From the perusal of statement of the revisionist as PW-1, it appears that she has made allegation in her affidavit for chief-examination that she was being subjected to harassment by husband, mother-in-law and other members of his family. She was compelled to live separate in the year 2017, since then no any money was given to her by the husband, though she has admitted the fact that the husband is suffering from paralysis in both the hands but she also stated that he makes earning by selling bangles. The opposite party no.2- husband has also filed his affidavit in evidence as DW-1 in which he has disclosed in para no. 13 that he makes earning Rs.10,000/- per month by conducting the business of bangles, which shows that opposite party no.2 makes income about Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is established that revisionist is wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and is living in her maika due to neglect on the part of the opposite party no.2. She has no CRLR No. 1358 of 2025 2 any other source of income to maintain herself. The opposite party no.2 though handicapped, but makes income of Rs. 10,000/- per month as admitted by himself. He being the husband, is under legal obligation to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, as having no source of income. 8.Learned trial court has not considered this fact, but passed the order dated 02.01.2025 erroneously, therefore, order dated 02.01.2025 is liable to be set aside as being illegal and erroneous. 9. Consequently, order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned trial court is hereby set aside and opposite party no.2/husband is directed to make payment of Rs. 3000/- per month to the revisionist/wife month to month as maintenance from the date of application. The amount if received by the revisionist/wife as maintenance/interim maintenance in any case, shall be subject to be adjustment in the present amount. So far as amount of arrears is concerned, it shall be divided in 12 equal installments payable month to month with current amount of maintenance. 10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. September 10, 2025 T.S. CRLR No. 1358 of 2025 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad