Allahabad High Court
Himanshu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2025
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143403
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2662 of 2025
Revisionist :- Himanshu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
2. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 4.4.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Case No. 223 of 2022 (Pragati and another Vs. Himanshu Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is wife, who is living apart from him without any sufficient reason with a minor daughter. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with an application for interim maintenance, which was decided by the learned trial court by order dated 4.4.2025 fixing the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of minor child, total Rs.6,000/- per month. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 is highly qualified and is M.Sc., B.Ed. and BTC and also makes earning by tuition and is able to maintain herself. Even though, learned trial court has fixed the amount that is excessive and beyond the paying capacity of the revisionist, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and allow the revision.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.
5. On considering the facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 4.4.2025, it appears that marriage between the parties is admitted. As per allegation made by the wife/opposite party no.2, she was subjected to harassment and demand of dowry that was the reason she is living in her Maika and the revisionist did not make any attempt to take her to Sasural. She is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter. On the other hand, the revisionist is Audiologist and works in several hospitals, though the revisionist has not disclosed his real income, except the ITR showing his income Rs.1,26,790/-.
6. Since the opposite party no.2/wife with minor child being unable to maintain herself, she is entitled for maintenance from her husband who is able bodied person and the amount Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of minor daughter cannot be said to be excessive or more than paying capacity of the husband. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned court dated 4.4.2025 but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 21.8.2025
Anil
