Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27276 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2933 of 2024 Revisionist :- Jagat Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Kumar Mishra,Ashwini Kumar,Nagesh Kumar Dwivedi,Shiva Kumar Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,P.K. Upadhyay,Vikram Yadav Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 4.3.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, family court, Chandauli in maintenance case no. 150 of 2020 (Jagat Prasad vs. Pankaj and others) under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby learned court below has awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of filing of application, which is payable by opposite party no. 1 and 2, who are sons born out from his wedlock of opposite party no. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 to 4 and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that this is admitted fact that the revisionist is father of respondent no. 2 and 3 and husband of respondent no. 4- Reena Devi. He had purchased a land in Nehru Nagar, Chandauli in the year 2000 in the name of his wife and after taking some legal procedure, a decree was passed of said land in favour of his wife. He had constructed three floor house after taking loan from the Bank and was running a printing press in the name of Gulshan Printing Press in the ground floor on the said house; operation of said printing press was taken over by his wife and both sons on their own in the year 2005 after executing in writing whereby he had entrusted operation of printing press to his son Pankaj and 08 rooms in second floor of the house, out of which, 02 rooms were given on rent; his wife and son had entrusted total work of printing press to Pankaj and thereafter the opposite parties had made distance from the revisionist; they even tried to dislodge him from his own house; they used to abuse and give beating to him; they segregated him in February, 2005 after giving a room and stopped providing meal to him; a Panchayat was convened but opposite parties had not appeared in the Panchayat on 2.6.2020 at 7:30 am; Pankaj had stolen his cheque book, Passbook, D.L. and Pan card; when he inquired from Pankaj about these things, he became furious and opposite party had beaten him and expelled from the house; the opposite parties are neither providing for his expenses nor they take care of him; he is 66 years of age; the opposite parties are possessed of sufficient property; they operate a famous printing press in Chandauli from where they earn around Rs. 2,50,000/- monthly; his sons Pankaj and Gulshan work in some private job from where they earn around Rs. 50,000/- per month; the revisionist has filed maintenance petition before the court below under section 125 Cr.P.C. which was partly allowed by the court below and only a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month has been awarded to the revisionist as maintenance which is highly insufficient to meet his necessary expenses therefore amount of maintenance is liable to be enhanced substantially in the interest of justice keeping in view pathetic condition of the revisionist and source of earning of private respondents. He also submitted that the respondents have not paid even a meagre amount awarded in the impugned order on regular basis. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 submitted that the revisionist is an habitual litigant; he has filed many court cases against the respondents, who are his sons and wife; he has even lodged FIR against his son Pankaj for committing theft of his articles; the revisionist has possessed a pickup vehicles and has taken a franchisee of animal feed by which he earns sufficiently and he is no need of money. He next submitted that the revisionist has not been comfortable with wife and sons and started living separately from them; infact he wants to sell his property to some other person from his wife and sons and for that purpose he has filed concocted cases of maintenance wherein false allegation of cruelty and maltreatment and misbehavior are made against the private respondents. Even learned court below has observed in the impugned order that the revisionist is earning some income from operating a pickup vehicle and also in the franchisee of Tirupati foods for animal; Pankaj derives his earning from Gulshan Printing Press and from that he maintains his brother Gulshan who is student and mother Reena Devi; he has also borne all expenses of marriage of his youngers sister Rubi and Vandana; the revisionist has even filed a false case against his daughter Vandana. Learned court below has observed in the impugned order that the opposite party has filed his objection in maintenance case wherein it is stated that marriage of opposite party no. 3- Reena Devi was solemnized with applicant 40 years ago and couple were blessed with two sons and two daughters namely Pankaj, Gulshan, Rubi and Vandana; the opposite party no. 3 had acquired a land in ward no. 3 with the help of her in-laws where she was residing with the applicant in the year 2006; applicant Jagat Prasad separated from her and her children after doing some quarrel with them; she raised her sons and daughter of her own enterprises and hard work after taking loan from bank and relatives; she married her daughter with the help of her sons; the revisionist did not appear even in marriage of his daughters and failed to perform his obligation as father; he insisted to sell house where opposite parties are living. Learned court below has observed in the impugned order that instant maintenance case has been filed by father against his sons; materials on record suggest that the applicant is deriving some income of his own but being old person is not able to derive sufficient income; the opposite party no. 1 and 2 are his sons and they are under obligation to maintain their old age parent; the opposite party has admitted in the written statement that they have to fulfill other family obligation and with these observation maintenance was awarded @ Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant. Finding of fact recorded by the court below is not liable to be interfered with the present revision. So far quantum of maintenance is concerned, it is admitted fact that the respondents are operating a printing press which belongs to his family and this averment of revisionist has not been controverted by the respondents that printing press was initially acquired by the revisionist; the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance is meagre amount, which is hardly insufficient to meet out expenses of his old person, who belongs to middle class family taking into consideration present market condition. Therefore, it is directed that the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned order is enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of judgement and the amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement is not interfered with the present revision. Any amount deposited by the respondents shall be liable to be adjusted towards arrears of maintenance. The revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Dhirendra/ Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad