Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67432 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3981 of 2024 Revisionist :- Rishabh Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Kumar Pandey,Sanjiv Kumar Pandey 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. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.998 of 2021 (Priya Sharma vs. Rishabh Tripathi) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which the court below has awarded the interim maintenance of Rs.4000/- from the date of application to the opposite party no.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist and he never entered into marriage with her. He is an unemployed person and the opposite party no.2 has filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against him with false allegations that he entered into marriage with her and thereafter subjected her to cruelty and harassment that was the reason she was living separate. He further submits that the learned trial court passed the order dated 01.06.2024 for interim maintenance fixing the amount Rs.4000/- per month against the revisionist without considering the objection moved by the revisionist, therefore, request to set it aside and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 01.06.2024, it appears that the revisionist and opposite party no.2 entered into marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir and lived as husband and wife. Later on, on account of dispute between the parties she started living separate from him and filed an application for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. There is nothing on record to show that she is working lady and works in Gurugram and is able maintain herself. To say that opposite party no.2 has filed false certificate relating to her marriage with the revisionist, he may have an option to move an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court which will be decided after making proper enquiry. Since, it has been mentioned in the order passed by learned trial court that admittedly both the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 have entered into marriage and marriage certificate alongwith photographs have been filed by her before the learned trial court which shows that the opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the revisionist is not under legal obligation to maintain her. It is not required under the law that the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 must be legally married but if they lived as husband and wife, she is entitled for maintenance as observation made in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad