Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:120223 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2456 of 2025 Revisionist :- Sri Rahul Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Shivam Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shivam Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for O.P. nos.2 and 3. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgement and order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Ghaziabad in Crl. Misc. Case no.479 of 2018 (Smt. Priyanka and another vs. Rahul Chaudhary) District-Ghaziabad by which the court below has awarded the maintenance of Rs.8000/- to O.P. no.2 and Rs.4000/- to O.P. no.3 per month, total Rs.12,000 from the date of application. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist's marriage was solemnized with opposite party no.2. Due to matrimonial discord, she left the matrimonial home and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 25.06.2018, which was allowed by the court below vide impugned order dated 24-04-2025 whereby the court below has awarded the maintenance of Rs.8000/- to O.P. no.2 and Rs.4000/- to O.P. no.3 per month, total Rs.12,000 from the date of application. . He submitted that the amount awarded by the Family Court is exorbitant and disproportionate to the actual income and financial capacity of the revisionist. It is contended that the Family Court failed to properly consider the financial hardship of the revisionist, who is already burdened with multiple family responsibilities including liability of his old age mother, medical expenses due to poor health, and other liabilities. The impugned order is alleged to have been passed without conducting any proper inquiry into the genuine economic condition and living standard of the revisionist. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order after due consideration of all relevant facts and evidence placed on record, and that no illegality or perversity exists in the order so as to warrant interference by this Court. He also added that, instead of complying with the maintenance order, the revisionist has been filing cases before different courts, and the instant revision is merely a ploy to delay the payment. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3397 has held as follows:- "The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate." 7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 2875, has held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was enacted to ensure that a woman, who has left or has been thrown out of her matrimonial home, can sustain herself and her children. The Court further held that the concept of sustenance does not merely mean "to lead the life of an animal", but rather that the wife is entitled in law to lead a life in a manner similar to that which she would have lived in the house of her husband. 8. In view of the aforesaid propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that filing of this revision is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and there is no merit in this revision. 9. It seems that the instant proceedings have been initiated with the sole intention not to pay the maintenance amount and it has been filed just to delay the payment of maintenance amount to the wife and daughter. 10. The instant revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad