Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51493 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1643 of 2025 Revisionist :- Numan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Abou Sofian Usmani,Khursheed Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the present revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the court of Additional Principal Judge, Kushi Nagar in Maintenance Petition No. 415 of 2016 (Afsana Khatoon and Another Vs. Numan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Khadda, District Kushi Nagar during the pendency of the present criminal revision. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case revisionist is husband of opposite party no. 2 who was, prior to his marriage, married to the elder brother of the revisionist and after his death both of them got married. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 3, Masum Raza was born with the wedlock between opposite party no. 2 and the brother of the revisionist. It is also submitted that the learned trial court has awarded maintenance in favour of opposite party no. 2, Smt. Afsana Khatoon Rs. 10,000/- who is living separately from the husband. It is also submitted that opposite party no. 2 gave her consent to the revisionist to enter into second marriage with some other lady, as a result he married with one Shaheen in the year 2016, therefore, for the wife Smt. Afsana Khatoon, it cannot be a reasonable excuse to live separate from the husband on the ground that other wife is also living in the house. The learned trial court did not consider this fact while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He also submits that the salary of the revisionist have been shown as Rs. 89,740/- on the basis of information obtained under the R.T.I. from the office of Minority Welfare Officer, Kushi Nagar though the revisionist has filed a petition before this Court which is still pending and now he is not getting the salary. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that there was an agreement of Rs. 4,00,000/- to be deposited in F.D.R. in favour of Masum Raza that amount be also adjusted in the amount of maintenance payable to opposite party no. 2 between the parties dated 06.02.2019 in which both of them agreed to settle the dispute amicably but later on opposite party no. 2 retracted and contended that she entered into agreement under pressure. In this way, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 17.02.2025 and the amount so awarded in favour of opposite party no. 2 against the revisionist cannot be said to be lawful and appropriate, therefore, request to set it aside and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On considering the facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 17.02.2025, it appears that opposite party no. 2 was wife of elder brother of revisionist who died in an accident and later on the revisionist married with opposite party no. 2. Opposite party no. 3, Mausam Raza was son of his elder brother born to opposite party no. 2. The revisionist entered into second marriage in the year 2016 with Shaheen, thereafter dispute arose between Shaheen and opposite party no. 2, Smt. Afsana Khatoon that was the reason, she demanded for Talak from the revisionist who refused, as result she went to her Maika and living there with opposite party no. 3, Masum Raza. Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2 for maintenance to her and her son but later on an agreement was entered into outside the court between the parties on some terms which is said to be made under pressure by the opposite party no. 2 that was the reason the agreement could not perpetuate. Since the revisionist entered into second marriage while the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Afsana Khatoon, the first wife living in the same house and there was dispute that was the reason she started living in her Maika is reasonable excuse for her to live separate from the husband, therefore, it cannot be said that she is living separate from the husband without any reasonable excuse. It also appears that Rs. 4,00,000/- said to be deposited in F.D.R. in favour of Masum Raza but on this ground the right of the wife for maintenance cannot come to an end and her entitlement continues. The salary slip of the revisionist shows Rs. 89,740/- monthly income from the teaching and this was issued under R.T.I. from the office of Minority Welfare Office, Kushi Nagar out of which Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded as maintenance in favour of opposite party no. 2 which cannot be said to be excess. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 17.02.2025 but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad