Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63583 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1892 of 2024 Revisionist :- Gopal Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Chaudhary 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 record. The present criminal revision has been moved with prayer to allow the revision and to set aside the judgment and order dated 12.03.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau in Case No.391 of 2016 (Rinku Devi and another vs. Gopal Singh) u/s 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the learned court below partly allowed the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed to the defendant/revisionist to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the plaintiff/opposite party no.2 and Rs.2000/- per month to the plaintiff/opposite party no.3 from the date of filing of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is wife and the opposite party no.3 is minor son of the revisionist. Further submitted that the marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 was performed in the year 2007 and both of them lived together till the year 2016. A child was born in the house of the revisionist who is living with him. The wife/opposite party no.2 was pregnant and left the revisionist and went to live in parents' house. The conduct of opposite party no.2 was not good and she always used to quarrel with him. She also assaulted his mother and father. The mother of revisionist also sustained injuries who later on died. She wanders here and there with other people. He filed a petition for divorce u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act which was decreed ex-parte by order dated 20.07.2018 and since then she is not his wife. She is skilled lady and makes earning to maintain herself and her child. On the other hand the revisionist is an unemployed person and there is no any source of income and he always remains sick, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court granting amount of maintenance Rs.3000/- in favour of wife and Rs.2000/- in favour of child since the aforesaid facts were not taken into consideration by the learned trial court. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case opposite party no.2 was wedded wife of the revisionist and opposite party no2 is minor son of the revisionist. Further contended that due to neglect on the part of the revisionist she went to the house of her parents and from the year 2016 she is living there with her minor son. When she went from the house of the revisionist she was pregnant but no any money or expenses were given by the revisionist to the wife and also the minor child for their maintenance. Without any notice he got ex-parte decree against her for divorce. The wife is not making any earning but is dependent on her parents. The learned trial court passed the order in question after considering all the facts, therefore, it cannot be said to be illegal. 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 passed by the learned trial court, it appears that opposite party nos.2 & 3 is wedded wife and minor child of the revisionist who got ex-parte decree from the court for divorce against the opposite party no.2 on 20.07.2018. From the year 2016 she is living separate from the husband due to his neglect and she went to her parents' house while she was pregnant but the revisionist did not give money either to her or to the child after his birth. There is nothing on record to show that opposite party no.2 is working lady or making income to maintain herself and her minor child. The revisionist is able bodied person and is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and the minor child. Even after divorce he is under obligation to maintain her unless she performs re-marriage. There is nothing on record to show that she has performed re-marriage with any person. Therefore, the revisionist is to make payment of maintenance to his divorced wife and minor child. Learned trial court has fixed the amount of Rs.3000/- in favour of wife and Rs.2000/- in favour of minor son total Rs.5000/-. This amount cannot be said to be in excess and beyond the paying capacity of the husband/revisionist. In this way, there appears no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad