Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114249 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3687 of 2024 Revisionist :- Pradeep Prajapati @ Pradeep Hariram Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Km. Azmi Begum Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ali Hasan,Asif Hasan,G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. List has been revised. No one is present from the side of revisionist. Sri Asif Hasan, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is present. Since at the instance of the revisionist, interim order dated 5.7.2024 was passed but the revisionist did not comply the order passed by this Court and his counsel stated before this Court on 4.2.2025 that he was no longer counsel for the revisionist in this case and expressed her inability to appear in the case. As a result notice was sent to the revisionist for engaging some other counsel which was served on him, as per office report dated 7.3.2025 and vakalatnama was also filed by the counsel. When the case was taken up on 10.3.2025 no one was also present for the revisionist but the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 was present and it was directed by this Court that in case of non-appearance of learned counsel for the revisionist on further date, the revision shall be heard and decided on merit, in accordance with law. Even today case called out but no one appeared from the side of revisionist in the revised call, therefore, this criminal revision is being decided on merit. Heard learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to allow the present revision and set aside the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, IIIrd, Jaunpur in Case 491 of 2019 (Smt. Soni Vs. Pradeep Prajapati), under section 125 Cr.P.C It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that due to neglect on the part of the revisionist , the wife/opposite party No.2 was living separate from him in her Mayaka and she is unable to maintain herself as having no any source of income. She was subjected to harassment by the revisionist that was the reason she started living separate from him. He has not given any amount for expenses to the wife, as a result she filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C which was allowed by the learned trial court and fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.5000/- per month from the date of application. The amount of maintenance as was fixed by the learned trial court is not excessive or more than sufficient but the revisionist, for the purpose of making harassment of the opposite party No2, filed this revision before this Court and obtained interim order but has not complied with the aforesaid order. It also shows his neglect and lingering tactics to avoid liability to provide maintenance. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial curt but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 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 wife is living apart from the revisionist due to his neglect and application under section 125 Cr.P.C filed by her has been allowed by the learned trial court fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 3000/- per month. Since the revisionist an able bodied person and is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and the amount of Rs.3,000/- for maintenance of wife cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 14.2.2024 passed by the learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 G.S Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad