Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60824 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3650 of 2024 Revisionist :- Puttan Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gufran Ahmad Khan Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 3, Budaun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 532 of 2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Binawar, District Budaun. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is first wife of the revisionist and opposite party no. 3 is minor son at the time of filing of application but now he is major. The opposite party no. 2 started living separate from the revisionist from the year 2020 without any reasonable excuse and filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Further submitted that when the opposite party no. 2 refused to live with him without any cause, he entered into second marriage and now living with the second wife and there are issues from her also. The grandfather (nana) of opposite party no. 3 has given immovable property to him and now he has become major therefore, cannot be said to be entitled for maintenance from the date of attaining majority as provided under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the amount of Rs. 4000/- to the wife and Rs. 5000/- to the minor son from the date of application is excessive in view of second wife, children and other liabilities relating to the family but all these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned trial court while deciding the said application vide order dated 29.04.2024, therefore, request to set aside the order and reduce the amount. Learned counsel for opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that due to neglect on the part of the revisionist, wife started living separate from the husband with minor son who has now become major though at the time of application he was minor and his date of birth is 01.01.2005. The revisionist entered into second marriage, therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 2 is living separate without any reasonable excuse. Further contended that from the date of application to the date of order no peny was given to her for maintenance, it also shows his neglect in maintaining his wife and minor son though he is an able bodied person and have sufficient means to earn income. He has sufficient agriculture land. The learned trial court has considered all these facts and circumstances of the case, the economic condition of the revisionist and then fixed the amount of maintenance in favour of wife and minor child i.e. Rs. 4000/- to the wife and Rs. 5000/- to the minor son that cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and the order passed by learned trial court, it appears that admittedly the opposite party no. 2 is first wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor son of the revisionist who has now become major since his date of birth is 01.01.2005. The wife is living separate from the husband/ revisionist with her minor son (now major) and he did not pay any money to her for maintenance which shows neglect on his part and the revisionist has entered into second marriage, there are issues from the second wife also. The grandfather (nana) of opposite party no. 3 transferred some land in his favour but it cannot be said that transfer of land by grandfather (nana) has absolved the father from his liabilities to maintain his minor son. On this ground the revisionist cannot be exempted from paying maintenance to the minor child. Learned trial court has considered all these factors while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 29.04.2024 and fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 4000/- to the wife and Rs. 5000/- to the minor son that cannot be said to be excessive and more than sufficient. As per provision contained under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the amount of maintenance to the minor son is to be paid till his attaining majority, therefore, the revisionist is to make payment of amount of maintenance in favour of the opposite party no. 3 the minor son only till the attaining of majority. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court and it does not warrant interference by this Court. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance from the date of application to the date of order is concerned, it may be divided into equal 15 monthly installments, those will be paid with current amount of maintenance month to month. Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of at the admission stage. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad