Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117473 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 351 of 2025 Revisionist :- Nitin Gupta Alias Roshan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Pathak,Rahul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhinav Dwivedi,G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Jyoti Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and, Sri Abhinav Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the impugned order dated 29-11-2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj, whereby the court below has awarded Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance from the date of application. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist’s marriage was solemnized with opposite party no.2. Due to matrimonial discord, she left the matrimonial home and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the court below vide impugned order dated 29-11-2024. He submitted 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 already burdened with multiple family responsibilities, medical expenses due to poor health, and other liabilities. The impugned order is alleged to have been passed without conducting any proper inquiry into the genuine economic condition and living standard of the revisionist. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the opposite party have 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. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10 The instant revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad