Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93228 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5242 of 2024 Revisionist :- Rajendra Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 591 of 2017 (Smt. Rajmati Vs. Rajendra Kumar Gupta), under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Police Station Mohana, District Siddharth Nagar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the revisionist is husband of opposite party no. 2 who is living separate from him without sufficient reason. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2002 which was allowed vide order dated 17.03.2004 and Rs. 400 per month in favour of wife was fixed as amount of maintenance. She again filed an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court for enhancement of amount of maintenance on the ground of change of circumstances which was allowed vide order dated 24.07.2024 and amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per month on the place of Rs. 400/- per month. Further submitted that the revisionist has no any property and he is also not in capacity to earn any income but he is dependent on others. The son of the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 is major and he makes earning in Mumbai and also sends money to his mother, therefore, she is able to maintain herself out of money sent by her son. In this way, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 24.07.2024 is erroneous and illegal, therefore, request to set aside the order and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court it appears that Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance were fixed by the learned trial court in the year 2004 and now after lapse of 20 years, the amount of Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance to the wife cannot be said to be sufficient but it is too less. The learned trial court has enhanced the amount of maintenance Rs. 2000/- per month but this amount can also not be said to be more than sufficient. The revisionist is able bodied person and is under legal obligation to maintain himself and his wife. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court and it does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this revisionist is dismissed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad