Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131751 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3049 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sugriv Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Azaz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 7.3.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Azamgarh in Case No.185 of 2018 [UPAZ020005422018] (Kusum Lata and others Vs. Sugriv) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party nos.3, 4 and 5 are children. Marriage between the parties was solemnized 20 years prior to the application of the year 2018. The opposite party no.2 without any sufficient reason left her matrimonial house and went to live in her Maika with the children. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which was allowed by the learned trial court by order dated 7.3.2024 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.3,500/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.3,000/- per month for each child, total amounting to Rs.12,500/-. He further submits that the learned trial court also allowed the amount of maintenance in favour of children without specifying the duration. In this way, learned trial court has passed the order in question without considering the material on record that is illegal, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and allow the revision. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. 5. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that admittedly the opposite party nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are wife and children of the revisionist. Due to neglect on his part, she started living in her Maika with the children, who were minor at that time. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2018 when the children were minor. The opposite party no.2 (wife) is unable to maintain herself and minor children as she has no source of income. The revisionist being husband and father of the children is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and the children till they attained the age of majority. As per the statement of revisionist he gets salary Rs.34,000-46,000/- per month by working as Driver in Charbagh Depot, Lucknow. Out of his income Rs.3,500/- in favour of wife cannot be said to be excessive, likewise Rs.3,000/- per month for each child can also not be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. Learned trial court itself has mentioned in the order that amount for children is payable till they attained majority. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 7.3.2024 and it requires no interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad