Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110687 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2579 of 2025 Revisionist :- Kamlesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Suneel Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and to set aside the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Azamgarh in Case No.876 of 2015 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Sandhya and another vs. Kamlesh), Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is wife opposite party no.3 is son of the revisionist. She is living separate from the revisionist without sufficient cause and filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance which was allowed by the learned trial court on 22.04.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of minor child. Further submitted that opposite party no.2 left the house of the revisionist and started living with her sister's devar Yogesh and the minor child was also born but filed the present application against him. A petition u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce has also been filed which is still pending. Learned trial court did not consider these issue but passed the order in question ignoring the material on record, therefore, the order passed by learned trial court cannot be said to be lawful and it being erroneous is liable to be set aside. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party no.2 is wedded wife of the revisionist and there is child opposite party no.3 Ankush from the wedlock. The revisionist has stated that the child was not born from the wedlock but it was from devar of sister of the wife Yogesh which shows that she was living in adultery but no any such evidence was adduced on the part of the revisionist before the learned trial court to show that she was living in adultery with Yogesh and son was born with the relation of Yogesh. The opposite party no.2 is living separate from him due to his neglect as stated by her that she was being harassed in relation to demand of dowry and was expelled on 20.04.2012 by the husband from his house since then she is living in her maika. So far as the petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce is concerned, in case decree is passed by the learned trial court in favour of the husband on the ground of adultery he will have an option to move an application u/s 127(2) Cr.P.C. to get the present order cancelled. Unless the parentage of minor is proved to be of some other than the revisionist, the child will be deemed to be legitimate son of the revisionist himself as he was born during the subsistence of marriage. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the finding recorded by the learned trial court and it cannot be said to be not based on the material on record. The amount fixed by the learned trial court as maintenance in favour of wife and minor child Rs.5000/- per month and Rs.2000/- per month, total Rs.7000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive and more than sufficient. There being no illegality in the order, it does not warrant interference by this Court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad