Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141858 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3054 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rajmani Sahani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Avinash Pandey,Gopal Krishna,Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi 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. and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddhrth Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 302 of 2016 (Smt. Radhika Devi and another Vs. Rajmani Sahani), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Etwah, District Siddharth Nagar. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor son of the revisionist. The opposite party no. 2 is living separate from him without any sufficient cause and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance which has been allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 29.04.2025 and fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of minor son from the date of application to the date of order and from the date of order Rs. 3500/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 2500/- in favour of minor son. This amount is excessive and beyond his paying capacity, since he is an unemployed person and have no any regular source of income. Further submitted that the opposite party no. 2, the wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. prior to the present application that was registered as Misc. Case No. 13 of 2013 which was dismissed as not pressed at the instance of opposite party no. 2, since she agreed to live with the husband as a result those proceedings came to an end. Subsequently, she filed present application but she did not disclose this fact before the learned trial court. In this way, she concealed the material fact and obtained the order dated 29.04.2025 even though the learned trial court has passed the order as aforesaid, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated 29.04.2025 and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On 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 order passed by learned trial court, it appears that admittedly the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor son of the revisionist. There was matrimonial dispute between both the parties regarding which an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife against the revisionist but there was compromise between both the parties that was the reason that case was not pressed on the part of the opposite party no. 2 and it was dismissed. Thereafter the opposite party no. 2 went to live with the husband with minor child but again she was subjected to torture and harassment which she disclosed before the learned trial court in subsequent application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Case No. 302 of 2016 particularly in para nos. 7 and 8, therefore, it cannot be accepted that she did not disclose this fact before the learned trial court in her subsequent application. She specifically made allegation against the revisionist about her harassment and torture and also she made similar statement before the learned trial court during her examination. The learned trial court has considered all these facts and then passed the order in question while recording the finding in this regard. It shows that the opposite party no. 2 is living separate from the revisionist due to his neglect that is sufficient cause for her to live separate from him. There is no any material on record to show that the opposite party no.2, the wife is making regular income from anywhere but anyhow she is maintaining herself and minor child. On the other hand, the revisionist is able bodied person and he admitted in his affidavit that he is operating Jan Sewa Kendra and earning Rs. 4000/- per month but on account of disturbance he is making no income at present. Keeping in view the fact that the revisionist being able bodied person is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor child, the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned trial court Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of minor child from the date of application to the date of order and amount Rs. 3500/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 2500/- per month in favour of minor child from the date of order can also not be said to be excessive or more than sufficient for maintenance to the wife and minor child. The learned trial court has already directed that the amount of maintenance, if received by the wife in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment. In this way, the order passed by learned trial court dated 29.04.2025 cannot be said to be illegal and in appropriate but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad