Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74542 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2284 of 2024 Revisionist :- Vikram Singh @ Pankaj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nikhil Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arjun Singh Solanki,G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj in Maintenance Case (u/s 125 Cr.P.C.) No.752 of 2019 (Smt. Neeru vs. Vikram Singh) allowing the application of the opposite party no.2, while awarding maintenance Rs.4000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 29.07.2015 to the opposite party no.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the revisionist was never married to opposite party no.2. He was married with one Sadhna in the year 2002 who started living separate from him due to mutual dispute. The opposite party no.2 being relative of Sadhna filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with false allegations only for making his harassment and for realizing money from him illegally. He never married her as a result she was never subjected to harassment or neglected by him. The revisionist lives with his old parents in the village and maintains them by working as labour. The papers filed by the opposite party no.2 before the learned trial court are false and fabricated. He also submits that he was working in C.R.P.F. but on the basis of complaint made by the opposite party no.2 he was dismissed from the service and now he is unemployed having no source of income. The learned trial court did not consider all these facts and allowed the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.4000/- per month from the date of application which is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the revisionist though was married with Sadhna in the year 2002 but later on she started living separate from him due to his misbehaviour. Concealing this fact he entered into marriage with opposite party no.2 on 03.07.2009 and she started living with him. Later on, he misbehaved with her and did not give any money for maintenance and he used to beat her and left her in her maika on 16.09.2010 and since then she is living in her maika with parents and she has also lodged an F.I.R. in this regard. The revisionist did not provide any money for the expenses and maintenance to the opposite party no.2. The revisionist was working in C.R.P.F. and getting salary Rs.30,000/- per month but by concealing the first marriage he entered into second marriage with the opposite party no.2 that was the reason after enquiry he was dismissed from his service. In proof of marriage the opposite party no.2 has filed invitation card, photographs, adhaar card, I.D. of Election Commission and the copy of dismissal order which shows that opposite party no.2 was wife of the revisionist. In this way, the submission of revisionist that she is not his wife is totally false. Though the revisionist is not in service at present after dismissal from the service but he is able bodied person, therefore, he is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and the amount of Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance in favour of wife cannot be said to be excessive but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the revisionist was married with Sadhna, later on he again married with the opposite party no.2 by concealing the fact of first marriage with Sadhna. In this regard, there is documentary evidence on record showing him as husband of opposite party no.2. The enquiry which was made by the enquiry officer in his department also shows that without taking divorce from the first wife Sadhna he entered into marriage with opposite party no.2 and on that basis he was dismissed from his service. In this way, it cannot be said that opposite party no.2 is not wife of the revisionist. Now he has been dismissed from the service in C.R.P.F. but being able bodied person he is under legal obligation to maintain his wife. The amount of maintenance Rs.4000/- per month can also not be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. The learned trial court considered all these facts and circumstances of the case and also the documentary and oral evidence present on record then passed the impugned order in detail. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order as a result it does not warrant any interference by this Court. Since the revisionist has not paid any amount of maintenance from the year 2015, therefore, the amount of arrears of maintenance may be divided into installments for the purpose of easy payment. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of finally with direction to the revisionist to make payment of arrears of maintenance in 30 equal installments alongwith current monthly amount of maintenance. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad