ORDER :

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A Court), Allahabad in Session Trial No.196 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Saurabh Pandey and others), arising out of Case Crime No.396 of 2020, under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 504, 308, 452, 304 IPC, Police Station Karchhana, District Allahabad (Prayagraj), whereby the Application 75-Kha moved by the informant, who is also defacto complainant, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

3. The factual matrix of the case are that the applicant Smt.Shashikala Devi filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against husband, who is present revisionist, before this Court with averment that her marriage was solemnized with opposite party on 09.05.2005 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. The parties performed their marital oblications for some time after marriage but even after expiry of four years, the applicant could not give birth of a child and due to this fact, her husband and in-laws started harassing and subjected her to matrimonial cruelty and they demanded additional dowry from the applicant. The cruelty practiced by the opposite party and his family members continued on 30.06.2009 and she was dislodged from her matrimonial home second time. After some cajoling from the side of applicant, the opposite party agreed to take her back with him and the applicant was send of to her matrimonial place on 08.08.2009 but again the harassment to the applicant continued and the opposite party and his family members used to give beating her, abused her and caused injuries to her on 07.02.2010 by assaulting her regarding which, an NCR was lodged at the instance of applicant at police station concerned under Sections 323 , 504 IPC and the learned ACJM directed investigation on application of the applicant on 16.20.2010. Due to continuous harassment and torture practiced by the opposite party and his family members, the applicant was forced to leave her matrimonial home and took shelter at the place of her parents. The opposite party was not ready to even provide maintenance to her due to which she had to file present petition.

4. Learned court below summoned the opposite party, who appeared and filed his written statement and the learned court below recorded the evidence of both sides and framed four issues in the proceedings. Learned court below gave finding that the applicant Shashikala Devi is legally wedded wife of opposite party Jayhind Singh. The opposite party observed carelessness and negligence in maintenance of the applicant and she was forced to live separately from her husband due to valid and reasonable cause. The applicant Shashikala Devi is unable to maintain her and the opposite party is having sufficient means to maintain the applicant. After giving above finding, the learned court below decided the maintenance application partially and provided maintenance to the applicant to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of application until the applicant contracts remarriage.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the main grievance of the revisionist is that the maintenance has been awarded from the date of application and the applicant is saddled with heavy economic burden for providing arrears of maintenance for more than 12 years alongwith regular payment of maintenance and the applicant is not in a position to pay this heavy amount of arrears due to h