MANISH GOEL @ MANISH KUMAR GOELversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 156 of 2026

Manish Goel @ Manish Kumar Goel
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)        : Ashutosh Srivastava, Ritvik Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : G.A.

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
                                                            CRLR No. 156 of 2026
                                 2

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
                                                                   3

                                    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
                                                                                            (Vinod Diwakar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
AKHILESH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad