Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111202 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1516 of 2025 Revisionist :- Krishnanand Pandey Opposite Party :- Vandana Shukla And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Lavlesh Kumar Shukla 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 order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli in Maintenance Petition No. 231 of 2021 (Vandana Shukla and another Vs. Krishnanand Pandey) filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor son of the revisionist. He further submits that marriage was performed in the year 2018 and on 28.04.2019 the minor son was born thereafter she left his matrimonial home and went to her maika since then she is living there without any sufficient cause and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was granted by the learned court by order dated 02.01.2025 and fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of minor child. He also submits that the revisionist is unemployed and has no regular source of income, therefore, the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned trial court is beyond his paying capacity. He also submits that the opposite party no. 2 was never subjected to harassment by the revisionist but she herself misbehaved with the revisionist and other members of his family. In this way, she cannot be said to be entitled for maintenance from the husband and the order passed by the learned trial court is illegal and erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case due to neglect on the part of the revisionist wife is living apart with minor child and is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the revisionist being husband is able bodied person and has capacity to pay the amount of maintenance to his wife and minor child. The amount of maintenance Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of minor child is not excessive or more than sufficient. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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, it appears that admittedly the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are wife and minor son of the revisionist. The wife stayed in the house of the revisionist till 29.05.2019 and also gave birth to the child on 28.04.2019. As per her allegations she was physically and mentally tortured that was the reason she dialed 112 and sent information to his parents who came there and took her with them. Thereafter, Panchayat was also held in which after compromise on 26.03.2020 she was brought to her sasural on 08.05.2020 but she was again subjected to harassment that was the reason she was left in her maika by the husband. This shows the neglect on the part of the husband to the wife. Again there was compromise between the parties and she went to her sasural on 29.07.2024 but due to neglect and misbehaviour of the husband she lodged a N.C.R. on 05.08.2024, it also shows neglect on the part of the husband. On the aforesaid ground it cannot be said that she is living separate without sufficient cause. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, he has not filed the affidavit in compliance of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha, as a result learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance after guess work regarding his income. In considered opinion of this Court, the revisionist being able bodied person is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and children. The amount of maintenance Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of wife and the amount of maintenance Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of minor child cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad