Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63637 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1880 of 2024 Revisionist :- Amit Rangi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinod Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Singh Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 655 of 2023, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the revisionist is husband of the opposite party no. 2 and father of opposite party nos. 3 and 4. The revisionist is practicing lawyer and making income of Rs. 35,000/- per month. The opposite party no. 2, without any reasonable excuse is living separate from him in the same house and claimed for maintenance by filing an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with an application for interim maintenance. Learned trial court vide order 02.03.2024 passed the order fixing the amount Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 5000/- for each to two minor children, total amounting to Rs. 17,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Further submitted that there are some other liabilities of the revisionist, those were not taken into consideration by the learned trial court at the time of passing the order in question. It is also submitted that the expenses of both minor children are borne by the revisionist also. Since they are living in the same house, therefore, it cannot be said that they are living separate from the revisionist. It is next submitted that opposite party no. 2 is trained in the work of beauty parlor and also able to maintain herself by making earning, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and to reduce the amount. Learned counsel for opposite party as well as A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the wife and children are living separate from the revisionist due to his neglect from the year 2023. He is not giving any money either to the wife or to the children. The wife is not capable of making any income by operating beauty parlor. The minor son is aged about 10 years and minor daughter is aged about 7 years. Both are school going children and all the expenses are being borne by the wife by taking money from her parents but the revisionist is not bearing the expenses of children also. A petition under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act has also been filed by the revisionist to get divorce from the opposite party no. 2, it also shows neglect on his part. Further contended that Rs. 7000/- in favour of wife and Rs. 5000/- for each to the minor children are not more than sufficient but less in the city of Ghaziabad. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and the order passed by learned trial court, it appears that in this case, the opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 4 are wife and minor children of the revisionist. Though they are living separate in the same house from the husband from the year 2023, he is not giving any money to them. There is no any material on record to show that the wife is working as beautician and making any income. The revisionist/husband is an advocate and admittedly earns Rs. 35,000/- per month, though there are liabilities of his old parents. The learned trial court has considered all these facts while passing the order dated 02.03.2024 by fixing Rs. 7000/- in favour of wife and Rs. 5000/- in favour of minor children for each. Since the husband is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor children and amount so fixed by the learned trial court can also not be said to be in excess or disproportionate. In considered opinion of this Court, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court vide order dated 02.03.2024, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court In this way, this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad