CRLR/1919/2025 of MUZAMMIL KHAN Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1919 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 4, is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4 and learned AGA for the State are present.  3. The opposite party no.2-Rubi Begam is also present, in person, in compliance of the order dated 30.04.2026, however, the revisionist- Muzammil Khan is not present. The personal appearing of the opposite party no.2-Rubi Begam is hereby dispensed with.  4. The present criminal revision is being preferred by the revisionist against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, in Case No.991 of 2020 (Criminal Misc. Case No.730/2020 (Rubi Begam and others Vs. Muzammil Khan), U/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.12,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2/wife and Rs.8000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3/daughter and Rs.8000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.4/son, from the date of filing of application i.e. 29.09.2020. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohammad Waseem Muzammil Khan .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage between the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 got solemnized on 08.02.2015 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Rituals. Revisionist is a Class-IV employee in the railway department and is bound to maintain his mother and three sisters. Whereas the opposite party no.2 is a lady of modern thinking who pressured the revisionist to demand his share and live separately from his family. The learned trial court concerned did not take in account the income and the living conditions of the revisionist and wrongly directed the revisionist to pay an excessive amount of Rs.28,000/- per months to the opposite party nos.2 to 4. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel of the revisionist and submit that the father of the opposite party no.2 spent around Rs.20,00,000/- in the wedding, yet the the revisionist and his family after marriage tortured the revisionist for dowry harassment, cruelty, beatings, and mental torture and demanded a scorpio car and Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry. On several occasions opposite party no.2 was expelled from the matrimonial home. Revisionist secretly and fraudulently married another woman named Pratibha Singh. On 15.09.2020, the opposite party nos.2 to 4 were thrown out from the house and since then they have been living in the paternal home of opposite party no.2 ever since. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 further contends that the revisionist earns around Rs.60,000/- per month from his government job and earns an additional income of Rs.1,00,000/- from farming and harvesting crops and the opposite party no.2 has no independent income, therefore, the revisionist possessed sufficient financial means, property, and earning capacity to maintain his wife and children. 8. Perusal of the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 shows that the learned trial court allowed the application under section 125 C.r.P.C. primarily on the ground that section 125 Cr.P.C. is a welfare provision intended to CRLR No. 1919 of 2025 2 prevent destitution of wives and children. The evidence on the record successfully proved neglect and refusal to maintain the opposite party nos.2 to 4 by the revisionist. In accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh vs. Neha and Others, decided on 04.11.2020, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2, in which the opposite party no.2 has identified herself as a B.Com. graduate and a housewife. She also mentioned pending proceedings under the Domestic Violence and Muslim Divorce Acts. No one appeared on behalf of the revisionist at the hearing and no oral or written arguments were advanced. A review of the documents filed by the opposite party no.2 regarding the revisionists property reveals that the revisionist has periodically transferred property owned by him to other individuals through Hiba and Sale Deeds, indicating that the revisionist possess enough movable and immovable assets to pay the maintenance to opposite party nos.2 to 4, thereby directing the revisionist to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.8,000/- per month each to the opposite party no.3 and 4 from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 29.09.2020. The trial court has taken into consideration the documents filed by the opposite party no.2 regarding the revisionists assists and liabilities and passed the impugned order, therefore, learned trial court impugned order is very well reasoned and justified and warrants no interference by this Court.  9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, in Case No.991 of 2020 (Criminal Misc. Case No.730/2020 (Rubi Begam and others Vs. Muzammil Khan), U/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.  10. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.  May 14, 2026 VKG CRLR No. 1919 of 2025 3 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad