Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35527 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1368 of 2024 Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Singh Chahar Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 3.1.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Maintenance Case No. 1448 of 2021d under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 from the date of filing application dated 3.10.2019. Arrear has been directed to be paid therein in four equal monthly installments. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 even in revised call. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that marriage of revisionist with respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 20.4.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The revisionist and his family never made any demand of dowry to respondent no. 2 or her family members. They have never practised matrimonial cruelty against her. The allegations made in application under section 125 Cr.P.C. are baseless and concocted. 5. The applicant used to say that her marriage with the revisionist was solemnized against her will as she was in affairs with some other person and wanted to get marry with him. She used to talk to her male friend on mobile phone in late night hours. The revisionist once heard the recorded chat of respondent no. 2 with her male friend on her mobile phone and then he came to know about her intimate relationship with other person even after marriage. The revisionist brought this fact to the knowledge of her parents but they got infuriated and lodged false F.I.R. against the revisionist at the instance of respondent no. 2 under sections 354, 506, 376, 511, 120 I.P.C. against the revisionist and his family members. Respondent no. 2 and other family members exhorted pressure upon revisionist to execute the sale deed of his plot in favour of respondent no. 2 otherwise they will laying them under the prison.The respondent no. 2 is living with her parents. she has deserted the revisionist on her own will. Respondent no. 2 is getting Rs. 15000/-per month by giving tuition to the children and also she has 1/3 share in the agricultural land of her father. 6. Revisionist bears responsibility of himself and his widow mother. It is next submitted that revisionist has never deserted his wife as respondent no. 2 has herself deserted from her husband without any sufficient cause, therefore, the claim of seeking maintenance is barred under section 125(4) Cr.P.C. but learned court below has not considered this issue and granted maintenance for a sum of Rs. 12000/- per month to the applicant without considering the point raised by the revisionist in his pleadings and evidence. He next submitted that the revisionist is employed in the Department of Air Force and has taken loan from LIC. He has to pay Rs. 20,657/- as EMI of the loan and after deposit of EMI of the loan the amount which remains with him is not sufficient for meeting his own expenses, coupled with the expenses of widow mother and to pay amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned order. 7. As per the salary slip of revisionist he is getting Rs. 47,000/- and after payment of EMI only Rs.27,000/- is left with him. Apart from that revisionist has to pay his huge sum of money as arrears of maintenance from the year 2019 to 2022 which is beyond the financial resource of the revisionist. 8. Per contra, learned AGA for the State submitted that learned court below has observed in impugned judgement and order that according to salary slip of May 2022, his gross salary was Rs. 54,654/- which would have been increased to some extent within the period of more than two years since then. Revisionist has also admitted in the cross examination that his father has 18-21 Bigha Kaccha land and from which his share comes 6-7 kacha bigha, therefore, the revisionist is able to pay the amount of maintenance awarded to the original applicant. 9. Respondent no. 2 filed an application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. on 3.10.2019 wherein she has stated that her marriage was solemnized on 26.4.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals in which her father spent loan of Rs. 30 lacs even then her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and assets given in the marriage. Her husband started demanding car as additional dowry and due to non fulfillment their demand, she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty, harassment and torture at her matrimonial home. On 20.8.2019 she was thrown out from her matrimonial place on 7 P.M. after grabbing her mobile phone and ornaments. They also threatened her and tried to kill her. During course of hearing of maintenance case, revisionist who is opposite party before the learned court below appeared and filed his written statement before learned court below. Learned court below framed six points of determination on the basis of pleadings of parties and after going through the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties gave a finding that this is admitted fact that applicant is legally wedded wife of the opposite party. Opposite party works in Air Force and is also having agricultural land in his village, therefore, he is able to maintain his wife. The opposite party has neglected to maintain the applicant and has paid nothing to her towards maintenance. Applicant is living separately from her husband due to matrimonial cruelty and torture. Applicant is not possessed of any means to maintain herself. 10. With above finding, learned court below awarded Rs. 12000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant from the date of filing application. This is trite law that finding of fact recorded by the learned trial court cannot be interfered in revision unless that is perverse or not supported of any evidence adduced during hearing of the case. 11. In present case also the finding of fact recorded by learned court below while deciding the point of determination framed by the court which is reasonable and supported with evidence on record, therefore, I find no substantial factual legal error in the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned court below however this fact is need to be taken into consideration that maintenance case was filed in the year 2019 i.e. 4 year prior to date of judgement and salary income of the revisionist would have been less than that what was shown in his salary slip in the year May 2022, therefore, some liberty need to be given to the revisionist so far as arrears is concerned, therefore, it is directed that amount of maintenance from the date of filing application to from the date of judgement is reduced from Rs. 12,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month but the terms and condition imposed in the impugned order for future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/-per month is not interfered with. The impugned order stands modified as stated above. 12. The revision is partly allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 11.3.2025/SY Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad