Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133732 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6616 of 2024 Revisionist :- Mohit Alias Abhishek Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajan Srivastava,Ritukar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Shukla Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By way of this instant revision, the husband-revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the trial court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month has been granted to the wife from the date of filing of the application i.e. 23.03.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the husband-revisionist has submitted that the impugned order is perverse because the trial court has not considered the fact that the husband is not earning. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the wife is running a beauty parlour from which she is earning income in excess of Rs. 50,000/- per month but this fact has not been considered by the trial court. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the trial court has committed further illegality in awarding the maintenance from the date of filing of the application whereas the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of passing of the impugned order. With these submissions, it was prayed that the impugned order be set-aside. 6. Learned AGA has opposed the above prayer of the revisionist. 7. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides and perused the record. 8. The wife-complainant has submitted in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that her husband is running a seed shop by which his earning is about Rs. 1 lakh per month but still he is not maintaining her. The husband has filed the licence of the alleged seed shop according to which it's proprietor is Rohit Kumar Sahu, who appears to be the elder brother of the husband. The husband has alleged that the wife is running the beauty parlour but no documentary evidence has been filed to prove the above fact. Only some photographs have been filed to prove this fact, which does not conclusively prove that the wife is running a beauty parlour. Even, if it is assumed that she is running beauty parlour even then her income is not proved. 9. The learned counsel for the husband-revisionist has admitted that the husband is able bodied person, who is not suffering from any disease or disability, who is capable of doing manual labour and is also having a graduate degree in Agriculture. 10. It is well settled that if the husband is able-bodied, free from any disease, and is not disabled, then he is bound to maintain his wife. 11. Keeping in view the amount of inflation and the living expenses, the trial court has awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month which cannot be termed excessive. 12. It is well settled that the maintenance is to be awarded from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as such, even on this ground, the trial court has not committed any illegality. 13. In view of these facts, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the trial court in passing the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, this criminal revision is meritless and is rejected. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Mayank Digitally signed by :- MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad