Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111642 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5647 of 2023 Revisionist :- Nand Kishor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Ramanuj Saini Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Pathak Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. None appeared on behalf of revisionist even in revised call. 2. The instant revision is pending since the year 2023, therefore, the same is being disposed of finally. 3. Heard Sri Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for O.P. Nos.2 & 3 and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State. 4. The instant revision U/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Case No. 500 of 2020 (Smt. Arti Kumari and others Vs. Nand Kishor) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District-Pilibhit. 5. Learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 and learned AGA submitted that revisionist is the husband of O.P No.2 and father of O.P. No.3 and he filed the instant revision against the impugned order dated 11.09.2023 by which he was directed to pay maintenance allowance to O.P. No.2 i.e. his wife and O.P. No.3 i.e. his son. They further submitted that as revisionist is the husband of O.P. No.2 an father of O.P. No.3, therefore, it is his legal obligation to maintain them. 6. They further submitted that impugned order dated 11.09.2023 is reasoned order and after considering facts of the case in detail, court concerned directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to O.P. No.2 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to O.P. No.3 from the date of filing of application i.e. 10.12.2020, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.09.2023. 7. They further submitted that therefore, instant revision is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. 8. I heard learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 &3 and learned AGA and perused the record of the case. 9. Revisionist challenged the impugned order dated 11.09.2023 in the instant revision on the ground that court concerned, while passing the same, committed gross illegality. 10. Revisionist is husband of O.P. No.2 and father of O.P. No.3 and as he failed to maintain them, therefore, Application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by them against him. Record suggests that after considering entire facts of the case in detail, court concerned vide impugned order dated 11.09.2023 directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to O.P. No.2 i.e. his wife and Rs. 4,000/- per month to O.P. No.3 i.e. his son from the date of filing of application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 10.12.2020. 11. After perusing the impugned order dated 11.09.2023, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order and impugned order is well reasoned order. 12. Further, considering the findings recorded by the court concerned while passing the impugned order dated 11.09.2023, it also could not be reflected that maintenance allowance awarded to O.P. Nos. 2&3 are excessive. 13. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, in my view, the instant revision filed by revisionist is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad