Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91253 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5787 of 2024 Revisionist :- Pawan Uppadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Singh Bishen Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Singh Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Varanasi in Case No. 368/2021 (Jyoti Pandey Vs Pawan Uppadhyay), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Singdhaur, District Varanasi and furthermore prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order during the pendency of this revision. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist and marriage was performed on 04.02.2013 and was living with him till the year 2020 thereafter she started misbehaving with the husband and other members of the family and started living separate from him without any sufficient cause. She also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist which was decided by the learned trial court by order dated 12.09.2024 fixing the amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance. He further submits that the wife is film producer and was Chairman of Mahila Bal Kalyan and has also been awarded Karamveer Samman at Patna. She also worked in T.V. serial and makes earning. She has knowingly concealed her income for claiming maintenance from the revisionist. The learned trial court has taken into consideration the business and property of father of the revisionist though he has no any concern with the property of his father. There is no any agricultural or other property in his name. He was working as Assistant Director in film industry but now he does not work anywhere but doing private job. It is also submitted that the revisionist has filed I.T.R. regarding his income for the assessment year 2021-2022 to 2023-2024 and his average income was Rs. 4,95,000/-. He has no any regular income even though the learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs 25,000/- per month that is excessive and beyond paying capacity of the revisionist and also the fact that wife herself is able to maintain herself by her own income, therefore, order dated 12.09.2024 is liable to be set aside and the amount of maintenance be reduced. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that she lived with the revisionist till the year 2020 thereafter due to misbehave and ill treatment on his part she started living with her parents. She was working in film industry at the instance of her husband/the revisionist. Now, she is working nowhere. She was awarded Karamveer award at Patna for working in an N.G.O. but from that N.G.O. there was no any income to her. He further contends that she is always willing to live with the revisionist but he himself is not willing to keep her as wife since he has relations with other women. He also contends that the case was referred to the mediation by this Court on the possibility of compromise and she was eager and willing to go with him but the revisionist was not ready to take her with him. This fact was also admitted by the revisionist when he was examined before the learned trial court as D.W. 1. It shows that the opposite party is living separate from the revisionist, as a result of neglect and with sufficient cause. Since he is Assistant Director in film industry and makes Bhojpuri films and also took the opposite party on foreign trips, which shows that he is rich and have handsome income. His father owns business and also there are flats in Mumbai from which he makes earning. In view of status of the revisionist and the wife the learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 25,000/- per month in favour of wife which cannot be said to be more than sufficient or excessive but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 12.09.2024, it appears that in this case the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist who is living apart from him due to his neglect. The matter was referred to mediation and the wife/opposite party was ready to go with the husband even though the revisionist was not ready to keep her with him that was the reason mediation failed. It also shows that the opposite party is living apart from him with sufficient cause. Since there is no any material on record to show that the wife is making income by working anywhere or by working in film industry. Though she was working in an N.G.O. related to child welfare and was awarded Karamveer award but on that basis it cannot be said that she was earning money or making income from the N.G.O. She also stated clearly that at the instance of the revisionist/husband, she also worked in T.V. serial but from the period she started living in her Maika, as a result of expulsion from her Sasural, she has not worked in any T.V. serial or film but she is dependent on her parents, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the wife is able to maintain herself or she has sufficient means in this regard. The income tax return has been filed by the revisionist for the assessment years 2021 to 2024. In the assessment year 2021-2022 his annual income was Rs. 4,05,810/-, in the assessment year 2022-2023 his annual income was Rs. 4,95,650/- and in the assessment year 2023-2024 his annual income was Rs. 4,95,290/-. When this amount is divided into months it comes about to Rs. 40,000/- to 42,000/- per month approximately. As observed in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 the amount of maintenance to wife may extend to 25% of the net income of the husband, therefore, out of this monthly income of the husband the amount of maintenance is to be fixed and that amount may be to the extent of 25% of his income i.e. about Rs. 10,500/- when rounded off it comes to Rs. 11,000/- per month from the date of application. The amount fixed by the learned trial court being based on assumption is liable to be modified and the amount of monthly maintenance in favour of wife is fixed at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per month on the place of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of application. Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad