HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5363 of 2026 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. 1. Heard Sri Pusp Raj Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant criminal revision has been preferred with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause. The relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the revision is delineated below:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the part of impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2026 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda in Laxmi Kushwaha Vs. Case No. 88/IX/2020. (Smt. Rajendra Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Atarra. Station-Bakewar, District- Banda. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2026 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda in Case No. 88/IX/2020 (Smt. Laxmi Kushwaha Vs. Rajendra Kumar) under Section 125 Atarra Cr.P.C., Police Station-Bakewar, District- Banda. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the opp. Party no. 2 to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the revisionist as maintenance from date of filing of instant case i.e. 11.02.2020 and till May, 2025 and/or pass such other and further order Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pusp Raj Singh, Radha Yadav, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt Laxmi Kushwaha .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P And Another .....Opposite Party(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he does not want to disclose the salary of the revisionist while submitting that the revisionist is a government teacher. He further submits that opposite party no.2 is also a government employee. He further submits that he has preferred the present revision for obtaining the arrears for the period when the revisionist was unemployed. 4. This Court has perused the record and finds that when there is no order of maintenance then question of granting arrears of maintenance does not arise at all. Moreso, as per Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., if a wife is unable to maintain herself in such condition, she is entitled to get maintenance. However, in the present case, the wife/revisionist is able to maintain herself. It is further clarified that maintenance is not a loan but it is liability and when the wife/revisionist is a government teacher and able to maintain herself, therefore, there is no need for passing any order with regard to arrears of maintenance. 5. Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed. September 24, 2026 Manish Himwan CRLR No. 5363 of 2026 2 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad