Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139852 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2913 of 2025 Revisionist :- Kaleedeen Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Meera,Nabi Ullah 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. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and to set aside the judgment and order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Maintenance Case No.130 of 2019 (Smt. Jyoti @ Rucha and another vs. Kalideen Prajapati) by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba passed the order by awarding a very huge amount in Interim Maintenance Application No.130 of 2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance amount to the opposite party no.2 Rs.4000/- and also to the opposite party no.3 Rs.2000/-, total Rs.6000/- per month from the date of application on every 10th day of English calendar month. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party no.3 is minor child of the revisionist. Further submitted that the marriage between the parties was performed in the year 2018 and the wife was pregnant at the time of marriage since she gave birth to a child just after five months from the date of marriage. He also submits that he has already filed a case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act for divorce stating the aforesaid facts which is still pending. He also made plea regarding this fact but the learned trial court has not considered the same and passed the order dated 30.04.2025 illegally fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.4000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of child from the date of application whereas it must be from the date of order. He also submits that the revisionist works as a labourer and has no sufficient income to make payment of the amount so fixed by the learned trial court which is excessive and beyond his paying capacity, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A, perusal of record and the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the marriage between the parties was performed in the year 2018. The opposite party no.3/the child was born to the opposite party no.2 regarding which the revisionist stated that it was born just after five months from the date of the marriage which indicates that it was not from the wedlock with the opposite party no.2. In this regard, the learned trial court has recorded its finding clearly while determining the point no.1 & 2 in which the revisionist himself has admitted that he has a son. The father of the revisionist was also examined as DW-2 who also admitted that he had a grandson. In this way, the revisionist has not denied the parentage in clear words before the learned trial court. So far as the case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, it is also pending and this fact is to be decided. The wife and the minor child are living separate from him due to neglect on the part of the revisionist, therefore, the learned trial court has allowed the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.4000/- per month in favour wife and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of minor child from the date of application. The revisionist has also admitted during his cross-examination that he works as beldar and earns Rs.400/- per day it also shows that his monthly income is about Rs.12,000/- per month out of which Rs.6000/- per month in favour of wife and minor child cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. The amount of maintenance is also to be given from the date of application not from the date of order as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court. In case the decree u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act is passed in favour of the revisionist he will have an option to get the order varied and modified u/s 127 Cr.P.C. as the case may be. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad