HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6578 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Prakhar Kumar, holding brief of Shri Vijay Shanker Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the opposite party no.1 and perused the record. 2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist for enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded vide judgment and order dated 30th September, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghazipur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 181 of 2016 (Smt. Pushpanjali Vs. Chandan Kumar Gond), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District - Ghazipur, whereby the trial court while ex-parte allowing the instant application has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of order. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist stated that the amount awarded by the trial court is meagre and in this amount it is very hard to carry out the livelihood. It is further stated that the opposite party no.2 is working as clerk in the Income Tax Department and getting salary of Rs.68,000/- and after mandatory deductions the opposite party no.2 is receiving salary of Rs.40,000/- as admitted by the opposite party no.2 himself in his affidavit filed before the trial court but this fact was not considered by the trial court and the amount awarded by the trial court is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, hence prayed for enhancement of the maintenance amount. Except this no other argument has been raised on behalf of the revisionist. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Om Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Shanker Tiwari Smt Pushpanjali .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionist and stated that the amount of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionist cannot be said to be meagre and as such the judgment and order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Court. 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 admitted case that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2. The trial court has framed as many as three issues and these issues were issued in detailed, therefore, this Court being the Revisional Court, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also substitute its own finding in place of findings of fact recorded by the trial court on the issue in question unless the finding is completely perverse and against the facts and law. 6. Since the question before this Court is with regard to the enhancement of the maintenance amount, perusal of the judgment at page-4 in paragraph-11 reflects that the opposite party no.2 while affidavit paper no.64-B before the trial court has admitted that he is clerk in the Income Tax Department and his gross salary is Rs.68,000/- and after mandatory deductions his net salary is Rs.40,000/- as recorded by the trial court. Therefore, in view the law laid down by the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (supra), Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (supra), 25% of the net income of the husband can be granted as maintenance to the wife, which comes to Rs.10,000/-, thus, the amount of maintenance allowance of Rs.6,000/- granted by the trial court deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, the maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of order. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order of the trial court is modified to the extent as indicated above. 8. In case, the opposite party no.2 has paid any amount towards the maintenance that shall be adjusted and if any arrears are yet to be paid by the opposite party no. 2, 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. 6578 of 2024 2 (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