JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

(C.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 in re: Application for Condonation of Delay)

1. Heard Shri Mohammad Abbas Zaidi, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, the revisionist has assailed the letter dated 06.07.2024, alleged to be an order, and the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Family Court on an application seeking interim maintenance preferred under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") by the respondent no. 2 in Case No. 580 of 2021 (Smt. Naneden Bano and 2 Others Vs. Laiq Ahmad), instituted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the Family Court awarded Rs. 1,000/- to each applicant as interim maintenance.

3. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Lucknow (in short "Family Court'), vide letter/order dated 06.07.2024 directed the Regional Manager, Awadh Depot Workshop, Qaiserbagh, U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow to deposit the amount before the Family Court after deducting the same from the salary of the revisionist.

4. The instant revision has been filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 477 days, as reported by Stamp Reporter.

5. Undisputedly, the revisionist is working in the Office of the Regional Manager, Awadh Depot Workshop, Qaiserbagh, U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow and he is earnining Rs. 38,179/-. Refernce in this regard can be made to Paragraph 10 of the memo of revision.

6. Impeaching the order under challenge, learned counsel for the revisionist states that the respondent no. 2 is not entitled to the maintenance as awarded by the Family Court.

7. It is also stated that the respondent no. 2, on her own volition, left the matrimonial home as such, she is not entitled to the amount towards maintenance in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

8. Learned A.G.A. for the side-opposite, A.G.A., opposing the present revision stated that just to avoid the payment of the amount awarded by the Family Court vide order dated 05.04.2023, which is an interlocutory order, the present revision has been filed.

9. It is also stated that on account of ill-treatment by the revisionist, the respondent no. 2 was compelled to left the matrimonial house along with two minors one of which is female child and as such, the respondents no. 2 to 4 are entitled to the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

10. It is also stated that the amount awarded by the Family Court is a meager amount and a normal person cannot survive with this amount.

11. It is also stated that it appears that on one pretext or other, the revisionist is avoiding the payment of the amount of interim maintenance as awarded by the Family Court vide order dated 05.04.2023.

12. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records.

13. Before entering into the facts of the case, it would be apt to refer the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in relation to dealing with the applications under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, observed as under:-

"9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353. This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under:

"In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16)

16. "… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable