Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113897 Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6240 of 2024 Revisionist :- Govind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akash Chandra Maurya,G.A. Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J. 1. List revised. No one is present on behalf of revisionist. 2. Heard Sri Akash Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for State. 3. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 11.01.2024, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No.712 of 2023, (Smt. Anita and others versus Govind), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Bithur, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby, the Court has partly allowed the interim maintenance Application (Paper No.16) of the opposite party no.2-Smt. Anita (herein) directing the revisionist-Govind (herein) to give Rs.5000/- per month to the opposite party no.2- Smt. Anita as interim maintenance during the pendency of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. Brief facts given rise to the present revision are that the opposite party no.2-Anita has filed an application for interim maintenance bearing Application (Paper No.16) stating therein that the opposite party no.2-Smt. Anita got married to the revisionist-Govind on 25.05.2010 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Thereafter, out of their wed-lock, three girls, namely, Km. Nishi, Km. Princi and Km. Aradhya were born and presently they are living with their mother and are studying. So called revisionist has neglected to maintain his wife and three minor daughters without having sufficient cause. Opposite party no.2 is illiterate lady and unable to maintain herself and her children, so she has moved an Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court below seeking maintenance. She also filed an Application (Paper No.16) supported by an affidavit (Paper No.17) and prayed that during pendency of the Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Rs.20,000/- per month be paid to her and her children for interim maintenance. 5. Thereafter, revisionist has filed objection (Paper No.18) to the interim maintenance Application (Paper No.16) stating therein that the opposite party no.2 is literate lady whereas revisionist is little literate. Opposite party no.2 is running beauty parlor and earns Rs.12,000/- per month, whereas revisionist is doing labour work. So revisionist is unable to maintain his wife and children, therefore, he prayed that the interim maintenance application may be rejected. 6. Learned court below after hearing both the parties and keeping in mind the averments made by both the parties, partly allowed the Application (Paper No.16) for interim maintenance and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision has been filed. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 11.01.2024, it reflects that the revisionist claimed that her wife is earning lady and she is earning Rs.12,000/- per month by running beauty parlor but no evidence regarding this has been submitted. However, revisionist admitted that he has no means of earning and also admitted that the opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife and out of their wed-lock three female children were born and they are living with their mother (opposite party no.2) and studying. 8. Now-a-days, education, medical treatment and living standard are very expensive, keeping in mind the inflation rate Rs.5,000/- per month for four members of the family cannot said to be excessive because as only Rs.1250/- has become in the share of each member. It is also admitted fact that the revisionist has never claimed that he is physically disabled person. It is pious duty of the husband to maintain her wife and children. 9. In view of the above, amount as interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Court below is correct and there appears no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 10. I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order in question under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Accordingly, revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed, accordingly. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 I.A.Siddiqui (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad