Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84803 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4867 of 2024 Revisionist :- Shail Bahadur Singh @ Shailendra Bahadur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Preeti Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Ms. Preeti Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2024 whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur has allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., filed by the opposite party no.2, directing the applicant to pay a monthly sum of Rs.8,000/- as maintenance amount. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 1987 and the same has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce in the year 2011. Thereafter, the applicant performed second marriage and from the second wedlock, there are two children. 4. Submission is that initially, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2001 and by order dated 10.05.2008, a sum of Rs.700/- per month was awarded as monthly maintenance amount. The application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2008 and the Court allowed the same ex parte on 06.11.2017 directing enhancement of maintenance from Rs.700/- to Rs.5000/-. The said order was initially stayed in the year 2018 but, later on, the same was recalled on 22.02.2023 on payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- which was paid by the applicant and consequently, the proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. stood revived and now the same have been decided by the order impugned. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is a doctor practising Ayurvedic Medicine and having responsibility of his second wife and two children, enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.700 to Rs,8,000/- is towards very higher side and, therefore, the order impugned should be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that from the wedlock of the applicant and the opposite party no.2, a daughter was born who has been married in the year 2014 and the entire expenses in relation thereto were borne by the opposite party no.2 herself and even not a single penny in this regard was paid by the applicant. Further, the submission has been made that considering the passage of time, enhancement in maintenance amount cannot be said to be erroneous. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that though there was a dispute between the parties regarding date of performance of second marriage by the applicant, there is a decree of divorce granted by the competent court in the year 2011. Therefore, the status of the opposite party no.2 is that of a divorced lady, however, this fact, in itself, cannot be a ground to either deny maintenance or to reduce the same in view of Explanation (b) attached to sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. which provides that "wife" includes a divorced wife. 8. In so far as submissions made by applicant that he has to maintain his second wife and two children born out of the said wedlock, the same also cannot be a ground for denying maintenance to the divorced wife as law does not contain any such provision. 9. As far as the reasoning assigned for modification or enhancing the amount of maintenance, the learned Judge has taken note of the fact that initial order was passed in the year 2005, i.e. 19 years ago and, since then, the cost of living has substantially increased. The learned judge has also taken note of submission made by the applicant regarding his status as a practising doctor. 10. The scope of Section 127 Cr.P.C. clearly stands reflected from the provision itself, that is to say, in case the applicant is able to prove change in circumstances, the initial order awarding maintenance can be altered by the court concerned in its discretion, which is apparent from the use of words "as he thinks fit". 11. The discretionary power conferred upon the Court under section 127 Cr.P.C. is essentially based upon factual analysis of the material before the Court and considering the fact that initial order was passed about 20 years ago, awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 700/- per month, and considering the status of the applicant as well as no proof of the opposite party no.2 having any source of income, this Court is of the considered view that alteration in the award of maintenance is not erroneous. 12. The scope of revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. being limited to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the order under challenge, in the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any error or perversity in the order impugned. 13. The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. As a consequence to the dismissal, the entire arrears lying up-to-date towards the applicant shall be computed by the opposite party no.2 and appropriate application shall be filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur, which shall be registered as miscellaneous case so as to execute the impugned order. 15. The execution proceedings, if instituted, shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 P Kesari Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad