HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3591 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite parties as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur Case No. 82 of 2021 (Smt. Samreen Bano and two others Vs. Mazhar Husain), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 1 is wife and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are minor children. The opposite party no. 1 is wedded to him in the year 2010 out of wedlock opposite party no. 2 and 3 were born, one is aged about 8 years and other is aged about 11 years. Further submitted that one daughter Shidra is living with father/revisionist and other is living with her mother/opposite party no. 1. Further submitted that there was illicit relation between the opposite party no. 1/wife and her previous lover who was in her contact prior to marriage with him. She used to go here and there with him and also to talk on phone. She was passing adulterous life and when she was objected by the revisionist she went to her maika and started living there with minor daughter and filed present application for maintenance which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 16.05.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance in favour of wife Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of application and in favour of opposite party no. 2, Km. Mayara, Rs. 2000/- Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Gulrez Khan, Javed Husain Khan, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Avantika Nigam, G.A., Raj Narayan, Vaibhav Gupta Mazhar Husain .....Revisionist(s) Smt. Samreen Bano And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) per month total Rs. 7000/-. It is also submitted that he has no any source of regular income but the property i.e. agricultural land is in the name of his father. Anyhow he makes income Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month out of which he is to maintain himself and one daughter who is living with him. The learned trial court has not considered the allegation made by the revisionist against the opposite party no.1/wife about passing adulterous life but fixed the amount of maintenance that is illegal and beyond material on record, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that there is allegation on the part of the revisionist that the opposite party no. 1 was in contact with the previous lover namely Javed Ahmad @ Kaifi and used to talk with him and also wander here and there with him, in this regard it is notable that she lived with the revisionist from the year 2010 to 2019 and two daughters were born but no any such allegation was made by him against character of the wife/opposite party no. 1. There is no any evidence in this regard except the allegation made by the revisionist himself. Though the agricultural land is in the name of the father of the revisionist and there is shop in which business is conducted by both father and the revisionist and make handsome income. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance that cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient for maintenance of wife and minor child. Further contended that the opposite party no. 1 has no any source of income to maintain herself and minor child. The revisionist has given Talak to the opposite party no. 1 and also filed a case for dissolution of marriage that is still pending, it also shows neglect on the part of the revisionist and his non-willingness to keep the wife with him. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that the marriage was performed in the year 2010 between the revisionist and opposite party no.1 out of wedlock opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were born and living with the revisionist for a period of nine years i.e. 2010 to 2019. No any allegation regarding her affair with Javed Ahmad was levelled by the revisionist against her. Due to his neglect, the wife started living separate from him since she was misbehaved and maltreated by the revisionist and he gave Talak to her. He has not given any amount to the wife or minor child for their maintenance. So far as the allegation of passing adulterous life by wife CRLR No. 3591 of 2025 2 is concerned, there is no any material on record to substantiate this allegation. Admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 is daughter born from the revisionist. In this way, the revisionist is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughter living apart from him, those are unable to maintain themselves as having no any source of income. The amount of maintenance fixed by the learned trial court in favour of wife Rs. 5000/- per month and in favour of minor child Rs. 2000/- per month till her attaining majority cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. Thus, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. September 18, 2025 Anurag Singh CRLR No. 3591 of 2025 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad