BINAY KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

(2.) The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set aside the order dtd. 5/2/2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Case No. 894 of 2021 (Jyoti Shakya Kushwaha Vs. Binay Kushwah), under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned trial court directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs.12,000.00 per month to opposite party no. 2 as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the application till the date of the impugned order and Rs.18,000.00 per month from the date of the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the trial court has failed to consider the income of opposite party no. 2, who is a Radiologist and had worked at Fortis Hospital from the year 2014 to 2020, which fact has been admitted by opposite party no. 2 before the trial court. It is further submitted that she left her job on her own volition and thereafter filed an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. only to claim maintenance from the revisionist. It is next submitted that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, was unwilling to discharge her matrimonial obligations and refused to reside with the revisionist.