HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 156 of 2026 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard leaned counsel for the revisionist-husband and perused the record. 2. The instant revision is heard and decided on the first date of hearing because of the reasons; (i) a short issue of award of maintenance to the estranged wife is involved, (ii) it's observed in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 that maintenance is a social measure to prevent wives and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy, (iii) if maintenance is not paid timely, it defeats the very object of the social welfare legislation, and (iv) the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 22.03.2024 and was decided on 02.12.2025. 3. The instant criminal revision has been preferred assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 02.12.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.474 of 2024, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.15000/- per month to the respondent- wife, from the date of the application. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the parties solemnized their marriage on 23.11.2023 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the parents of the respondent-wife provided dowry articles to the best of their capacity; however, the in-laws remained dissatisfied. Soon after the marriage, the respondent-wife was allegedly subjected to harassment and cruelty on account of persistent dowry demands in shape of car and forced to leave matrimonial home on 3.3.2024. Thereafter, litigation started between the parties. 5. On 22.03.2024, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The said application was allowed by the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashutosh Srivastava, Ritvik Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Manish Goel @ Manish Kumar Goel .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) learned Family Court vide order dated 02.12.2025, whereby the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.15000/- per month to the respondent- wife, from the date of the application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revisionist-husband has preferred the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-husband submits that the revisionist- husband is a heart patient as well as suffering from hepatitis-B since 13.12.2023. Additionally, the respondent-wife had concealed the material fact of her first marriage from the revisionist and settled her first marriage after taking Rs.19,25,000/- from the first husband. Learned counsel further submits that due to medical condition of the revisionist his business of book publication has been badly affected and is not in financial condition to comply with the impugned maintenance order. The impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner, without due appreciation of the material available on record therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. The Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held that ordinarily revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised on a question of law. Interference on factual appreciation is warranted only in cases where the findings are perverse. The revisional power is to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice or abuse of judicial power, and mere suspicion or apprehension is not a sufficient ground for interference. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the revisionist and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that respondent no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The learned Family Court provided the opportunity to the revisionist to lead his evidence but due to non presence of the revisionist, the opportunity was closed. Further, the respondent-wife has specifically asserted that the revisionist is running proprietorship firm in the name of M/s Deep Publication, Meerut and also works in Property and Insurance Sector, and by all means he earns Rs.66,666/- per month. Further, in the objection filed by the revisionist in the maintenance proceedings, he himself has stated that the marriage between the revisionist and the respondent-wife is the second marriage of both the parties. However, the revisionist has not placed any cogent documentary evidence on record either to rebut the said averments regarding the income of his wife and to substantiate his plea of financial incapacity. So far as alleged settlement of the respondent-wife with the first husband is concerned, shall not come in a way of subsequent proceedings with the petitioner-husband. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no CRLR No. 156 of 2026 2 illegality, material irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 10. The present criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 11. However, it is directed that the learned Family Judge shall ensure timely execution of the impugned maintenance order dated 02.12.2025 strictly in accordance with the law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (supra) and Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine All 2260. 12. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith for compliance. February 3, 2026 A. Tripathi CRLR No. 156 of 2026 3 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad