Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144091 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6233 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt. Rubi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Om Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ranjana Yadav Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J. 1. Heard Mr. Om Prakash, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, 19th October, 2024 in Case No. 1234 of 2020 (Smt. Gaytri Devi Vs. Smt. Rubi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Prem Nagar, District-Jhansi, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance. 3. Facts in short are that the revisionist is daughter of opposite party no.2. After the death of her father, who was Class-IV employee in the Collectorate of District Jhansi, the revisionist had also been appointed on the said post under the dying-in-harness rules. At the time of appointment, she also submitted an affidavit declaring that she will take care of her mother and other dependents of her father. At present the revisionist has been promoted on class III post. 4. Initially learned counsel for the revisionist states that the Additional Principal Judge has passed the impugned judgment and order without considering the evidence led during the course of trial, therefore, the same is per se manifestly illegal. However, after argument has been advanced at some length, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that since the maintenance allowance has been awarded in favour of opposite party no.2 by the trial court from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., if the impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent that arrears of maintenance allowance shall be directed to be paid in 20 equal installments. He further undertakes that the revisionist shall pay the said arrears of maintenance allowance and also pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 regularly from the next month. 5. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records of the present revision, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is admitted fact that the revisionist is daughter of opposite party no.2 and she had been appointed on Class-VI post in the Collectorate of District Jhansi under dying-in- harness rules after the death of her father. Therefore, she is under legal obligation to maintain her mother and disabled brother i.e. dependents of her father. Now the revisionist has been promoted on Class-III post and now she is getting Rs. 44,000/-, the maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs.7,000/- cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. As such, the impugned judgment and order impugned is just and legal. The same is unsustainable in the eyes of law. However, in the interest of substantial justice, the same is modified to the extent that the revisionist shall pay the arrears of maintenance allowance in 20 equal installments, the first installment will commence from September, 2025. The revisionist shall also pay Rs.7,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 regularly towards maintenance allowance as awarded under the impugned judgment. 7.The present criminal revision is disposed of subject to the observations/directions made above. (Madan Pal Singh, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Sushil/- Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad