Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85440 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4248 of 2024 Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Omar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Indra Jit Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Indra Jit Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Petition No. 582 of 2018 (Smt. Dipti Omar and another Vs. Amit Kumar Omar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case,opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are wife and minor daughter of the revisionist. Opposite party no. 2 is living separate from him without any sufficient reason and opposite party no. 3 is also living with her mother. Further submitted that the marriage was performed in the year 2009 and opposite party no. 2 entered into marriage with the revisionist by concealing her first marriage with some other person. The opposite party no. 2 used to misbehave with the revisionist and she never treated him and members of his family in well manner. No any demand of dowry or harassment was made either by the revisionist or by members of his family. She started living in her maika from the year 2015. She lodged an F.I.R. against the revisionist and other members of his family under Section 498-A IPC with false allegation and that case is still pending. A case for divorce has also been filed by the revisionist against her that is also pending. It is also submitted that the revisionist works as labour and earns meager income out of which he maintains himself and other members of his family. On the other hand, the opposite party no.2 is owner of loader and motorcycle which shows that she has sufficient sources to maintain herself and her daughter, even though learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 4000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 5000/- in favour of minor daughter from the date of application that is excessive and beyond paying capacity of the revisionist, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and allow the revision and to reduce the amount of maintenance. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 is married wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor daughter of the revisionist who was born from the wedlock. Due to neglect on the part of the revisionist, the opposite party no. 2 is living separate from him in her maika and opposite party no. 3 is also living with her. When no any amount was paid to them by the revisionist for their maintenance, present application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned trial court. The revisionist has told himself to be a labourer and making meager income. The opposite party no. 2 is registered owner of a loader and motorcycle as she admitted in cross-examination before the learned trial court but she also stated that she has sold the loader which was purchased by her father to Laxmi, though registration has not been transferred till now. Laxmi has also filed an affidavit stating the transfer of money to the opposite party no.2 for purchase of loader. There is no any other material on record to show that she makes any income by plying the loader or by use of motorcycle. Being owner of the motorcycle she cannot be said that she has sufficient means to maintain herself and her daughter. The revisionist is able bodied person and under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughter. The amount of maintenance fixed by the learned trial court Rs. 4000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 5000/- in favour of minor daughter cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. Thus, there appears no any illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court seeking interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad