Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130384 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3645 of 2025 Revisionist :- Dr. Mohammad Yusuf @ Vipul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamal Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by revisionist today in Court is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 9.6.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 839 of 2021 (Smt. Sunita Verma and another Vs. Dr. Mohammad Yusuf @ Vipul) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Saraikhwaja, District Kanpur Nagar. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is not wedded wife of the revisionist and opposite party no.3 is also not his son, even though opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist for maintenance of herself and the son (opposite party no.3). Learned trial court has rejected the claim of opposite party no.2, since she could not prove herself to be wife but allowed the application to the extent of opposite party no.3 (the child) and fixed the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application. He further submits that opposite party no.3 is not his son, therefore, he is not under obligation to pay maintenance to him. Learned trial court also did not get the DNA tested but held that opposite party no.3 is his son, on the basis of material filed on record, that is not reliable. In this regard the finding recorded by the learned trial court on issue no.2 is erroneous and illegal, therefore, request to set aside the judgment and order dated 9.6.2025 and allow the revision. He further submits that the amount so fixed by the learned trial court must have been from the date of order and not from the date of application. In this regard also learned trial court has committed error. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in the present revision the issue of opposite party no.2 being legally wedded wife of the revisionist is not in question, but it is related to the maintenance of opposite party no.3 (minor son). Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that the learned trial court framed the issue no.2 in this regard and recorded its finding on the basis of material provided by both the parties before the learned court and concluded the opposite party no.3 as son of the revisionist, therefore, he is entitled for maintenance from him. The revisionist being Doctor in Government Hospital gets handsome salary per month, out of which Rs.10,000/- per month for maintenance cannot be said to be excessive and disproportionate to the income of the husband. He further contends that as per the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, the amount of maintenance can be fixed from the date of application and not from the date of order. In this way, this revision is devoid of merit. 6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned court for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party and learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court dated 9.6.2025, it appears that in this revision the main issue is related to the fact as to whether opposite party no.3 is son of the revisionist or not. In this regard, learned trial court has made determination point no.2 and recorded its finding on the basis of material on record. In addition to the statement of the opposite party no.2, the school fee deposit receipt and birth certificate were also filed in which the name of Mohammad Yusuf was mentioned as father of the child. Before this Court, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37839 of 2021 was also filed in which revisionist undertook to make payment of Rs.10,000/- per month as the amount of maintenance to the minor child Rehan (opposite party no.3). Various photographs showing the participation of revisionist in several ceremonies relating to the child were also placed. All these facts were duly considered by the learned trial court while recording the finding on this issue. Since this case is not related to the declaration of parentage of child, therefore, DNA test is not cardinal. In this way, there appears no any error of fact or law while recording the finding in this regard by the learned trial court. 7. So far as the amount of maintenance Rs.10,000/- per month for maintenance of child is concerned, it can also not be said to excessive or more than sufficient and disproportionate to the income of the husband i.e. as per the salary slip for the year 2023 showing gross salary Rs.56,911/- and net salary Rs.45,335/-. The amount of arrears of maintenance to the child shall be divided into equal 10 monthly installments, those will be paid with current amount of maintenance month to month. 8. Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of at the admission stage. 9. The amount, if any, received by the opposite party no.3 as interim maintenance or maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment in the present amount. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad