Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93535 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5635 of 2024 Revisionist :- Brij Raj Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Aradhana Singh,Bhawna Verma 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. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow this revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.325 of 2017 (CNR No.UPKN02-001439-2017) (Smt. Sarita and 2 others vs. Brij Raj Singh Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar and directing to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to Sarita (opposite party no.2) and Rs.5000/-, Rs.5000/- per month to minor daughters (opposite party nos.3 & 4) every month from the date of passing the order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party nos.3 & 4 are minor daughters of the revisionist. Further submits that the opposite party no.2 was married to revisionist in the year 2010 and thereafter, two daughters were born from the wedlock. She was never subjected to harassment or maltreatment either by the revisionist or any members of his family. It is also submitted that the revisionist is handicapped person that is the reason opposite party no.2 does not like him and she started living apart from him with her minor daughters in her maika. She moved an application with false allegations in police station several time. She also moved an application in Family Court which was disposed of on the basis of compromise but again she started misbehaving and treated with cruelty to the revisionist. She left his house and moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The learned trial court also allowed the application without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.5000/- per month for each minor daughter from the date of application to the date of order. She also submits that the revisionist is Government servant and works in D.M.S.E.R.D, Defence Ministery, Krishna Nagar, Kanpur Nagar gets salary Rs. 70,000/- per month. He has other liabilities to discharge relating to the maintenance of his brothers and other members of his family out of his income and the amount so fixed is excessive and disproportionate to the income of the revisionist, therefore, request to reduce the amount and set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated 23.09.2024. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. 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 the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that in this case opposite party no.2 was wedded to the revisionist in the year 2010 and two daughters were born from the wedlock. Thereafter, she was subjected to harassment under the effect of intoxication as a result she filed an application before the learned Family Court in this regard but both of them entered into compromise and she again started living with him but later on the revisionist continued to make harassment and also used to beat when she was pregnant regarding which a case was also registered in Govind Nagar Police Station and she was to remain in L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur Nagar. It shows that due to neglect on the part of the revisionist she is living apart from him with two minor daughters. The revisionist is also not making any payment either to the opposite party no.2 or to the opposite party nos.3 & 4. On the other hand, the opposite party no.2 has no any source of income and she is not able to maintain herself and her minor daughters. The revisionist being capable of earning is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughters. As per the salary slip of the revisionist for the month of August, 2023 he was getting net salary Rs.54,680/- per month and he also possesses agricultural land. Considering the income from salary slip and from the agricultural produce, the learned trial court has assessed his income about Rs.60,000/- per month out of which Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.5000/- in favour of each minor daughter have been fixed as maintenance. Since the amount of maintnance fixed in favour of wife Rs.10,000/- per month that is less than 25% of monthly income, therefore, it cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. Likewise the minor daughters were 5 years and 2 years old respectively in the year 2017 and now they have become 13 years & 10 years of age, therefore, Rs.5000/- in favour of each minor daughter for their maintenance can also not be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, it is directed that the revisionist shall make payment of amount arrears of maintenance in 12 equal installments payable with the current amount of maintenance per month. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, disposed of at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad