HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6769 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri S.A. Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Sonebhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 185 of 2020 (Smt. Vindhyachali Vs. Rohit), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 1500/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 1000/- to the opposite party no.3 from the date of application to the date of order and Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs. 2000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 from the date of the order. 3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a daily wage labour and does not get work regularly, sometimes he get work and at other times he remains unemployed. Hence, the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below is excessive, exorbitant, and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is living separately without any sufficient reason while the revisionist wants to live with her. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that considering the current inflation, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 5000/- in total cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : S. A. Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandramani Singh, G.A., Saurabh Kumar Rohit .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....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 trial court, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 is his minor daughter and there is nothing on record to show the income of opposite party no.2, therefore, she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. So far as the separate living of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the trial court in paragraph no.27 has recorded its categorically finding that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient reason as she has been tortured by her in-laws including her husband due to additional demand of dowry. It appears from the impugned judgment that the opposite party no. 2 is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. The finding recorded by the trial court is findings of fact and this Court being a revisional court, may not re- appreciate the evidence to return its own finding unless the finding recorded by the court is perverse and against the facts and law. 6. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, it is also admitted that the revisionist is working as labourer and his income is not certain on account of that he is unable to pay the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court, there is no documentary evidence on record regarding income of the revisionist but even if revisionist is considered to be labourer, even then he can earn Rs.600/- per day, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per month and keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. 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 revisionist comes to Rs. 4500/-. 7. Thus, in view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount awarded Rs. 5000/- in total by the court below is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife but the amount of maintenance should be commensurate with the income of the husband. Hence the maintenance awarded by the court below seems to be excessive and deserves to be modified, hence it is reduced to Rs. 2500/- from Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 2000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (daughter) payable from the date of order. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 4500/- from Rs. 5,000/- per month in total from the date of the order. CRLR No. 6769 of 2024 2 9. It has been apprised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that there is huge amount of arrears, which are to be paid by the revisionist, which cannot be paid in one stroke, therefore, it is divided in 20 equal installments. The first installment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The remaining installments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. . October 7, 2025 Akbar CRLR No. 6769 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad