Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117471 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 431 of 2025 Revisionist :- Arjun Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Tripathi,Ashish Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahesh Kumar Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Shahsi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and, Sri Mahesh Kumar, 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 02-12-2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the court below has awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3 (minor daughter) from the date of filing of the 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 along with minor daughtger and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the court below vide impugned order dated 02-12-2024. 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 the matter of Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. reported in (AIR 1997 SC 3397) has held as follows:- "The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate." 8. Further, 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. The instant revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad