HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5459 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Shashi Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Brijesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr in Case No. 890 of 2022 (Smt. Hemlata @ Gunjan & others Vs. Kapil Kumar @ Chetan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 12000/- per month to the opposite party nos.2 and Rs.4000/- each to the opposite party no.3 and 4 as maintenance allowance from the date of the application. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is excessive, as the revisionist has no permanent source of income. Alternative, it is submitted that the trial court has awarded the amount of maintenance from the date of application, which should be modified from the date of order. Except for the aforesaid submissions, no other argument has been advanced. It is, however, fairly admitted that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and opposite party nos.3 and 4 are his minor sons.. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submits that in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324; the revisionist has filed an affidavit before the trial court as paper no. 23B/1 and 33B/4, in which, it is mentioned that presently the income of the revisionist is Rs. 1,30,000/- out Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vivek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey Kapil Kumar @ Chetan .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) of which Rs. 80,000/- received from rent and Rs. 30,000/- from other sources. The amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court Rs. 20,000/- in total cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 5. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by the trial court, it appears that admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are his minor sons. So far as the separate living of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, it appears from the impugned judgment that the revisionist is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. There is nothing on record to show income of the opposite party no.2 as she is unable to maintain herself as well as her children, which transpires from the page no.18 of the impugned judgment. The finding recorded by the trial court is findings of fact and this Court being a revisional court, may not re-appreciate the evidence to return its own finding unless the finding recorded by the court is perverse and against the facts and law. 6. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, it is reflected from paragraph no. 51 of the impugned judgment as well as from the affidavit filed by the revisionist before the trial court that he possesses a degree of B.P.Ed. and is also the owner of a shop. He has admitted his income to be ₹1,10,000/- from all sources and keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband. 7. Hence, keeping in view of income of the revisionist, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance awarded by the trial court of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs. 4000/- each to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 cannot be said to be excessive, which is already on lower side, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed. 9. It has been apprised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that there is huge amount of arrears, which are to be paid by the revisionist, which cannot CRLR No. 5459 of 2024 2 be paid in one stroke, therefore, it is divided in 24 equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The remaining instalments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. October 6, 2025 Akbar CRLR No. 5459 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad