Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134960 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3656 of 2025 Revisionist :- Krishna Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Neeraj Kumar Pandey,Vashishtha Narayan Tripathi 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 with a prayer to allow the revision and quash/set aside the judgment and order dated 19.04.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh, in Criminal Misc. No. 646 of 2022 (Kajal Vs. Krishna) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh and further prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no. 2 is wife and marriage was performed on 08.06.2019. She lived with the revisionist for a period of one month only then she went to her maika. She is living there without any sufficient cause and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2022 which was decided by the learned trial court by order dated 19.04.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of wife from the date of application. He further submits that he was not given an opportunity for adducing his evidence and the order was passed on merit this caused prejudice to him. He also submits that the revisionist is an unemployed person and have no any regular source of income, therefore, the amount fixed by the learned trial court being excessive is beyond his paying capacity, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the revisionist was given full opportunity of hearing before the learned trial court. He did not adduce evidence though several dates were fixed for the purpose but he became absent. On the date of argument he argued the case but no any application was made by him for reopening the evidence to him. After hearing the revisionist the order in question was passed on merit, therefore, this order cannot be said to be ex-parte order. The amount fixed by the learned trial court can also not be said to be excessive. There is no any illegality in the order but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be set aside. On considering the facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 and the revisionist are wife and husband and marriage was performed in the year 2019. The opposite party no. 2 is living apart from him in her maika due to misbehave and demand on the part of the revisionist. During the proceedings of the case opportunity was given to the revisionist for adducing his evidence but he became absent. Several dates were fixed for the purpose but he did not adduce his evidence. Ultimately his evidence was closed and case was fixed for argument on 17.04.2025 on which both parties were present and argument was heard and case was reserved for judgment on 19.04.2025. On 17.04.2025 no any application was made by the revisionist before the learned court for reopening of evidence which was closed on 09.04.2025. In this way, it cannot be said that the revisionist was not given an opportunity of hearing and case was decided ex-parte but after giving full opportunity it was decided on merit after hearing the revisionist also. The amount fixed by the learned trial court that is Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of wife can also not be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. The revisionist being able bodied person is under legal obligation to maintain his wife who is living separate from him due to his neglect and have no any means to support. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite party no. 2 is able to maintain herself by making income. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned court dated 19.04.2025, therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad