HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6761 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj in Criminal Case No. 164 of 2021 (Smt. Priya vs. Pramod Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kasganj, District Kasganj whereby the revisionist has directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) from the date of the application. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 01.05.2014 according Hindu rites and ritual and from their wedlock, they have two children. The opposite party no. 2 is living separate from the revisionist without any reasonable excuse and she filed an application an application on 04.03.2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that the court below without any assessment of the income of the revisionist has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 is too excessive. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is working as a labour and he also maintain himself along with two children. The opposite party no.2 is a graduate lady and doing tuition and she is capable to maintain herself. All these factors were not taken into consideration by learned court below while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set-aside the order passed by learned court below and allow the revision and reduce the amount. 4. Learned learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that considering the current inflation, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 5000/- cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity and this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pramod Yadav .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned court below dated 01.10.2024. So far as the relationship between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 is concerned, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife and they have two children. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that opposite party no.2 is living separately due to negligence on the part of the revisionist. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, there is no documentary evidence regarding his income and the court below reached to the conclusion that the revisionist is working as labour and he earns at least 500/- per day where he would earn maximum of Rs. 15000/- per month. However it is pious duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife and children, but there should be a balance between the income of the husband and the amount of maintenance. In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. 6. Keeping in view of the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (supra), it is considered opinion of this Court that the amount of maintenance has been fixed by the learned court below is too excessive as the per the income of the revisionist, hence it is reduced to Rs. 3750/- per month in place of Rs. 5000/- to the opposite party no.2, payable from the date application. 7. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the impugned order dated is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 3750/- per month from the date of the application, in place of Rs. 5000/-. 8. The amount received, if any, by the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment. 9. However, Since the revisionist is labour and the remaining amount of arrears from the date of filing of application is so excessive in one stroke to be paid by the revisionist to opposite party no.2, it is provided that the revisionist shall pay the arrears of maintenance allowance to the opposite party no.2 in 20 equal installments. The first installment shall commence from October, 2025. The revisionist shall also pay the amount of monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3750/- to opposite party no.2 regularly. September 1, 2025 C. MANI CRLR No. 6761 of 2024 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad