RAJENDRAversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4441 of 2024

Rajendra
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                  :   Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A., Prabhakar Dubey

Court No. - 88
                    HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and learned AGA for the State are present.

2. The present criminal revision is being preferred by the revisionist against
the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024, passed by learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Siddharth Nagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No.397 of 2018,
CNR No.UPSD020009682018 (Rajendra Vs. Rupesh), by which the
application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist for maintenance has
been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist was
married to the opposite party no.2's mother, but the marriage was
deteriorated because of the nature of the wife. She aided by her brother-in-
law, filed Case No.358/2002, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the
revisionist. Consequently, the case was decided on 17.03.2004, ordering
maintenance for the opposite party no.2, his sister, and his mother. He
further submits that few years ago, when the opposite party no.2 became an
adult, the revisionist stopped paying his expenses. The revisionist does not
own any agricultural land and is elderly. He suffers from respiratory and
arthritis problems and due to lack of capital and physical weakness, he is
unable to earn any money.
                                                           CRLR No. 4441 of 2024
                                 2


4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the
arguments advanced by the revisionist and submits that the opposite party
no.2 and his family were thrown out of their house in the year 2001 itself by
the revisionist, therefore, the case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by his mother
and now the revisionist has stopped paying the maintenance of opposite
party no.2's mother, thus neglecting and abandoning her. Revisionist is
financially well-off, owning a construction and grocery store. He also has
substantial agricultural land and a permanent house, earning approximately
Rs.30,000/- per day. Furthermore, he wants to transfer his properties to the
children of his second wife and deprive the opposite party no.2 of his
properties forever and is not entitled to receive maintenance.

5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 shows that the learned
trial court concerned dismissed the application of the revisionist for
maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the oral and documentary
evidence proved that the revisionist is capable of maintaining himself
whereas the opposite party no.2 does not possess enough means to support
the revisionist. The trial court has further observed that the mother of
opposite party no.2 has instituted a case for maintenance before the
competent court and the order of maintenance was passed in her favour and
against the revisionist on 17.03.2004 and the revisionist was directed to pay
a sum of money towards maintenance to mother of opposite party no.2 and
also maintenance was awarded to the opposite party no.2 and his sister till
her marriage (who were minor at that time). The revisionist had been paying
the maintenance amount as has been directed till the year 2017, but when the
revisionist stop paying the maintenance amount from May-2017, an
application was filed before the court concerned for enhancement of the
maintenance amount and the maintenance amount was subsequently
enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the mother of opposite party
no.2. It is apparent that in response to the maintenance proceeding that had
been filed by the first wife of the revisionist (mother of opposite party no.2)
against him, the present application for maintenance has been moved by the
revisionist against the his son from first marriage i.e. opposite party no.2, to
                                                                                            CRLR No. 4441 of 2024
                                                                     3


                                    avoid payment of maintenance amount to his first wife. The learned trial
                                    court impugned order is very well reasoned and justified, therefore, warrants
                                    no interference by this Court.

                                    6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order
                                    dated 24.07.2024, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
                                    Siddharth Nagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No.397 of 2018, CNR
                                    No.UPSD020009682018 (Rajendra Vs. Rupesh), by which the application
                                    u/s 125 Cr.P.C. needs no interference by this Court and the present revision
                                    is liable to be dismissed.

                                    7. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.
                                    May 14, 2026
                                    VKG
                                                                                                (Achal Sachdev,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad