Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133702 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6551 of 2024 Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari,Sudhir Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Ali Imam Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. are present. No one appears for the opposite party nos.2 to 5. 3. The present criminal revision has been filed to set aside/quash the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Bulandshahr in Maintenance Case No.937 of 2020 (Smt. Manju Sharma and others vs. Amit Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the learned court below has awarded maintenance of Rs.16,000/- to the opposite party no.2, Rs.3,000/- each to the opposite party nos.3, 4 and 5 being minor children of the opposite party no.2, total Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in the impugned order, the trial court has not considered this fact while awarding maintenance to the wife and children that the revisionist is paying maintenance to his old father and incurring an expenditure of Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial court has also not considered that in compliance of the previous order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the revisionist is already paying a maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife. Learned counsel submitted that while passing the impugned order the trial court should have considered the above two facts which have not been considered. With theses submissions, it was prayed that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the husband-revisionist was getting a gross salary of Rs.87,596/- for the month of June, 2024 and from this salary a deduction of Rs.25,000/- was being made towards the payment of maintenance allowance to the wife, which is in compliance of the order dated 11.10.2019 passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has been considered by the trial court while passing the impugned order. 6. The trial court has also considered the submission of the revisionist that he is incurring an expenditure of Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance of his father. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court has awarded a maintenance of Rs.16,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month each to three children, a total maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month is to be paid to the wife and children which is not excessive and below the 1/3rd limit of the gross salary of the revisionist. Since, the trial court has duly considered the above submissions of the revisionist, as such, this is not a fit case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 8. The present revision has got no merits and is accordingly, dismissed. The impugned order of the trial court is affirmed. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Jitendra Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad