Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88335 Court No. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5427 of 2023 Revisionist :- Sabdul Mohammad Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Hari Bans Singh,Yusuf Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,Saddam Husain Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. The list has been revised. 2. It appears that neither the respondent Nos. 2 nor 3 has personally filed this revision. However, a counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf. 3. This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist. The prayer is to set aside the judgment and order dated 4th August, 2023, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Deoria in Maintenance Petition No.369 of 2022 (Bebi Rukshana & Others Vs. Sabdul Khan). The order was made under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali, District-Deoria. In this order, the family court awarded maintenance allowance in favour of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. The order directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to opposite party No. 2 (daughter-in-law) and Rs.2,000/- per month to opposite party No. 3 (grandson), respectively. 4. The counsel for the revisionist argues that the impugned judgment is illegal per se. He contends that the trial court imposed an unlawful monthly maintenance obligation of Rs.3,000/- on the revisionist in favour of his daughter-in-law, Bebi Rukshana, and Rs.2,000/- on his grandson, Sameer Khan. The counsel asserts that this obligation is not valid under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1, Sri Dinesh Kumar Rai, has also conceded to the legal point raised by the counsel for the revisionist. 6. The court heard Sri Hari Bans Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist, and Sri Dinesh Kumar Rai, the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1. 7. Perusal of the impugned judgment dated August 4, 2023, reveals that the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court directed the revisionist, who is the father-in-law of the respondent no.2 and the grandfather of the respondent no.3, to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (daughter-in-law) and Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (grandson), respectively. A straightforward reading of Section 125 Cr.P.C. clearly establishes that a wife can claim maintenance from her husband, a minor child can claim maintenance from their parents, and similarly, parents can also claim maintenance from their son. However, it is important to note that this section does not obligate a father-in-law to pay maintenance to his daughter-in-law or his grandson. Therefore, the impugned order dated August 4, 2023, passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court No.1, Deoria, in the Maintenance Petition No.369 of 2022 (Bebi Rukshana & Others Vs. Sabdul Khan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is invalid and must be set aside. 8. Consequently, the impugned order dated August 4, 2023, is hereby set aside, and the present revision is allowed. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Order Date :- 23.5.2025 VKG Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad