HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6458 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Mehrotra and Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-opposite party no. 1 and perusal the material on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-2, Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 1225 of 2019 (Kumari Aaruni Vs. Saurabhsheel) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Kotwali, District- Deoria, by which the application of the revisionist filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist, from the date of application. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist is 50% handicapped and he has expenses of his own care, protection and of medical etc. and the amount awarded by the trial court is excessive. He further states that the opposite party no.2 is residing with her mother. The mother of the opposite party no.2 is working as Assistant Teacher and getting salary of Rs.80,000/- but this fact has not been considered by the trial court and the claimed amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded by the trial court while it is responsibility of both to maintain their minor children. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that at the time of filing of the application the child was seven years old and both the parties have the moral responsibility to maintain her, for which Rs.20,000/- will suffice the cause, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Parvesh Singh, Praveen Kumar Pandey Saurabh Sheel .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) at this stage. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the revisionist that the revisionist, however, has disability of 50% but he is in job, working as Deputy Manager in State Bank of India and earns Rs.96,000/- per month and he has no liability except the minor children as his father is a pensioner and mother has already died, therefore, the amount awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be excessive. Except this, no other argument has been raised on behalf of opposite party no.2. 5. 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 is not disputed that the opposite party no.2 is the minor daughter of the revisionist and due to some matrimonial discord, the minor daughter is living with her mother at the parental house i.e. at the house of her maternal grandmother (Nani). It is also admitted fact that the mother of the minor daughter also in government job and she is getting salary of more than Rs.80,000/-. The law is settled that in case both the parents are in job then it would be responsibility of both of them to maintain the minor children. When the application for maintenance was decided the opposite party no.2 was seven years old, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that in case Rs.20,000/- per month is allowed as maintenance, it would be sufficient to maintain her, at this stage. 6. Therefore, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and 50% physical disability of the revisionist, expenses on his own, the revisionist, who is father of the opposite party no.2 and Smt. Anuradha Jaiswal, the mother of the opposite party no.2, if she would incur Rs.10,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance to the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist would also incur Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2, i.e. total Rs.20,000/- per month would be sufficient for maintenance of opposite party no.2 towards her higher education and cost of living etc. hence, keeping in view the 50% disability of the revisionist the amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- is deserves to be reduced. Accordingly, the amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- is reduced to Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of application. 7. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent indicated above. 8. In case, the revisionist has paid any amount towards the maintenance that CRLR No. 6458 of 2024 2 shall be adjusted and if any arrears are yet to be paid by the revisionist, the same shall be paid in ten equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The rest nine instalments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. 9. With the above observations/directions, the instant criminal revision is partly allowed. October 7, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 6458 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad