Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117472 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 355 of 2025 Revisionist :- Dilip Baranwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. List revised. 2. None appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. 3. Shri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents is present. 4. This is a case where opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the revisionist, and opposite party no. 3 is their daughter. Due to matrimonial discord, opposite party no. 2 left the matrimonial home along with her daughter and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The Family Court, vide order dated 19-10-2024, partly allowed the application and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the daughter from the date of the application (04.01.2020) till the date of judgment. Further, from the date of judgment (19-10-2024), the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 as lifelong maintenance and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the daughter until she attains the age of majority. The arrears were to be cleared within three months, and future maintenance was to be paid by the 10th day of each month. The said order has been challenged in the present revision. 5. This revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking quashing of the order dated 19-10-2024 on the ground that the amount awarded by the Family Court is exorbitant and disproportionate to the actual income and financial capacity of the revisionist. It is contended that the Family Court failed to properly consider the financial hardship of the revisionist, who is employed as a constable in the Border Security Force and is drawing a modest salary. It is further submitted that the revisionist is also burdened with multiple family responsibilities, medical expenses due to poor health, and other liabilities. The impugned order is alleged to be passed without taking into account the genuine economic condition and living standard of the revisionist. The revisionist also contends that no proper inquiry into his financial status was conducted before awarding the maintenance. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the learned Family Court passed the impugned order after due consideration of all relevant facts and evidence placed on record, and that no illegality or perversity exists in the order so as to warrant interference by this Court. He also added that, instead of complying with the maintenance order, the revisionist has been filing cases before different courts, and the instant revision is merely a ploy to delay the payment. 7. Learned A.G.A. further argued that the revisionist has not produced any document showing that he has ever made payment of the maintenance amount to the opposite party. It is further submitted that the court below has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 2875, wherein the Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was enacted to ensure that a woman, who has left or has been thrown out of her matrimonial home, can sustain herself and her children. The Court further held that the concept of sustenance does not merely mean "to lead the life of an animal", but rather that the wife is entitled in law to lead a life in a manner similar to that which she would have lived in the house of her husband. 10. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that filing of this revision is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and there is no merit in this revision. 11. It seems that the instant proceedings have been initiated with the sole intention not to pay the maintenance amount or it has been filed just to delay the payment of maintenance amount to the wife and children. 12. The instant revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad