Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116861 Court No. - 89 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3722 of 2024 Revisionist :- Madhulata Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jai Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. None is present for opposite party no. 2 / husband, despite represented by Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate even on revised call. 2. Instant revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 7.5.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau in Case No. 503 of 2020 (Madhulata Singh and another Versus Pankaj Singh), under Section 125 CrPC, whereby the claim of the revisionist / wife of opposite party no. 2 has been rejected, however, a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance has been awarded to the minor son of the couple, from the date of filing of application under Section 125 CrPC, till he attains majority. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau without considering the fact that the revisionist is living with her minor son in the house of her father, having no source of income, rejected her claim for maintenance, which is arbitrary and against the law. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that there is matrimonial discord between the parties and a first information in respect of the same dispute as Case Crime No. 0274 of 2020 under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act has been lodged against the husband, which is pending adjudication before the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the Principal Judge, Family Court rejected the claim of the revisionist solely on the ground that the revisionist herself left her matrimonial home and is not willing to reside with her husband. He has further submitted that, so far the revisionist is concerned, she is ready to live with her husband, but her husband is habitual of harassing and subjecting her to cruelty and he has demanded dowry for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the revisionist has been harassed physically and mentally both. It is also matter of record that there are two children born out of the wedlock and elder son is residing with the husband and younger son is residing with her mother (revisionist) and a sum of of Rs 2,000/- as maintenance has been fixed for care and education of minor son, who is residing with revisionist and same is directed to be paid from the date of filing of application for maintenance till minor son attains majority. 6. Since none appears for opposite party no. 2 even on revised call, revision is being decided as per material available on record. 7. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State submitted that as far as maintenance, which has been fixed in respect of minor son, is perfectly justified, as it has neither come on record nor anywhere in the order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau that the revisionist is having any income of her own. 8. Moreover, the Principal Judge has come to the conclusion that the minor son is entitled to maintenance, then it goes without saying that some amount of maintenance is required to be given to the estranged wife / revisionist also, specially when the revisionist is residing with her minor son and is taking care of her livelihood with the help of her parents. 9. Having regard to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 10. It has come on record that the revisionist is an unemployed lady and is living separately from her husband and is taking care of her minor son, having no source of income and maintenance has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month, in these circumstances, the Principal Judge ought to have considered grant of maintenance to the revisionist / wife also, therefore, the order dated 7.5.2024 passed by the Family Court is set aside to the extent, whereby the claim of the revisionist for maintenance has been rejected. The matter is remitted back to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau to consider and decide the matter afresh in respect of claim of the revisionist for maintenance after affording opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence, if any. However, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month to the minor son, is upheld. 11. Accordingly, revision is allowed in part. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 HR Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad