Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75867 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 760 of 2023 Revisionist :- Hariom Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manish Pandey,Priyanka Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jayant Prakash Singh Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. Learned A.G.A for the State states that service is sufficient on respondent no. 2, but none is present to oppose the revision on behalf of respondent no. 2. 3. This criminal revision has been preferred by the husband against the impugned order dated 05.01.2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No. 55 of 2020, (Smt. Kalpana Vs. Hariom), under Section 125 Cr.P.C, P.S. Hayat Nagar, District Sambhal, whereby the wife Smt. Kalpana has been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of application till the passing of the impugned order and subsequently the maintenance has been enhanced to Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order of the lower court is illegal and based on surmises and conjectures. There is no evidence on record to prove that husband is having 70 bighas of agricultural land in his own name. The husband is a labourer. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there is no documentary proof of the income of the husband, still the lower court has awarded the maintenance to the wife, only on the basis of agricultural land existing in the name of revisionist's father. Learned counsel has further submitted that wife is doing work of embroidery, sewing and knitting and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, but this fact has not been considered by the lower Court. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the lower court has arbitrarily enhanced the maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month, from the date of impugned order which is illegal. With that submission, it has been prayed that criminal revision be allowed and impugned order be modified and the maintenance awarded by the lower court be reduced to Rs.5,000/- per month. 6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A has submitted that the lower court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The husband has concealed his income and property. The husband's father is having more than 70 Bighas of agricultural land. Learned A.G.A has further submitted that legally the husband is bound to maintain his wife, but in this case, the husband has failed to discharge his solemn duty. Learned counsel has further submitted that keeping in view the prevailing inflation the lower court, has rightly enhanced the maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month, which cannot be termed as excessive. With these submission, it has been prayed that the criminal revision has got no merits and be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the impugned order and the record. 8. On the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there is no documentary evidence of any agricultural land, existing in the name of the husband and in the cross- examination, the husband has accepted that his father has got 30 Bighas of agricultural land. The husband has not claimed that he is a labourer. The lower court has come to the conclusion that in view of the above the husband is doing farming, who is healthy person and who is bound to maintain his wife. 9. It is not the case of husband that he is disabled or is suffering from any disease. It is also true that while awarding maintenance, the lower court has also considered the prevailing inflation and has accordingly, enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- per month to Rs.8,000/- per month, from the date of impugned order. The learned counsel for the revisionist - husband has conceded that, if the amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month, then he will continue to make payment of this amount of maintenance to the wife. 10. In my opinion, keeping in view the prevailing inflation, the maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month awarded to the wife is excessive and its requires modification. Accordingly, keeping in view that the husband is doing farming, the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs.6,000/- per month. 11. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. The amount of maintenance awarded to the wife is reduced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month, from the date of impugned order dated 05.01.2023. Rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the lower Court are affirmed. 12. The revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 09.05.2025 Vinod. Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad