Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101027 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5749 of 2023 Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Kumar Mishra,Vipin Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. From the record, it reflects, notice has been served personally upon opposite party no.2. Despite service of notice, none present on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. Heard Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Vipin Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State are present. 3. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order dated 18.09.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah in Case No. 524 of 2022, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits, revisionist is the husband of opposite party no.2 and by the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 court concerned allowed the maintenance application filed by opposite party no.2 moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month but impugned order dated 18.09.2023 is illegal. 5. He further submits, applicant is a pauper and he is poor labour and he was not having sufficient money to pay Rs. 5,000/- to opposite party no.2 i.e. his wife. 6. He further submits, actually opposite party no.2 i.e. wife of revisionist was on the fault and she herself left her matrimonial home and in this regard when revisionist filed application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights then his application was allowed but in spite of that she did not return to her matrimonial home to fulfill her matrimonial duties and this fact clearly suggests that she was not ready to live with the revisionist but this fact has not been considered by the court concerned while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and therefore court concerned committed gross illegality. 7. He next submits, therefore, considering the above facts, the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the court concerned is illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits, opposite party no.2 is the wife of the revisionist and it was his duty to maintain her and from the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 it reflects, revisionist tried to conceal his income. 9. Learned AGA further submits, only Rs. 5,000/- per month has been directed to pay as maintenance allowance to the wife, which cannot be said to be excessive and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.09.2023, therefore, instant revision filed by the revisionist is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. Revisionist is the husband of opposite party no.2 and instant revision has been filed by him against the order dated 18.09.2023 by which, court concerned directed him to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 i.e. his wife as maintenance allowance. However, from the record it reflects, when revisionist filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act then same was allowed but in view of this Court, merely on this ground the right of opposite party no.2 to receive the maintenance from the revisionist i.e. her husband cannot be extinguished. 12. Further, however, as per revisionist he is poor labour and he is not in a position to give Rs. 5,000/- per month to his wife as maintenance but from the record, it reflects, he did not disclose his income and considering this fact, the finding recorded by the court concerned that revisionist tried to conceal his income cannot be said to be illegal. 13. Therefore, considering the overall facts of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the court concerned specially considering the fact that Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance now a days cannot be said to be excessive one. 14. Accordingly, the instant revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 1.7.2025/AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad