Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65313 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 481 of 2024 Revisionist :- Vikas Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyendra Narayan Singh,Vikas Singh Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists with prayer to set aside the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Baghpat, in Case No. 29 of 2021 (Smt. Sangeeta Vs. Vikas), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Ramala, District Bathpat. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist and is living separate from her husband without any reasonable excuse. She lived for a period of two months in her sasural and thereafter went to her maika. In spite of efforts on the part of the revisionist, she did not come to him and not ready to live with him, it shows that the wife herself is reluctant to live with him though the husband is ready to keep her wife. The revisionist is working as an employee of Group D in Railway Department and gets salary Rs. 24,500/- per month but the learned trial court fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 8000/- per month in the violation of observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 and Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324. All these factors were not taken into consideration by learned trial court while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and allow the revision and reduce the amount. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, the husband himself ill-treated the wife/opposite party no. 2 that was the reason she started living in her maika. She does not make any income and is unemployed and now dependent on her parents. The husband/revisionist is under legal obligation to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself. The amount fixed by learned trial court cannot be said to be in excess or not in proportion to the salary of the husband. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court dated 31.10.2023, it appears that due to neglect on the part of the husband/revisionist, the wife is living separate from him in her maika and the revisionist is an employee in Railway group D and gets monthly salary Rs. 24,500/-. Agricultural land is in the name of his father, therefore, in the life time of the father the revisionist/husband has no any interest in the agricultural land of the father. In view of observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (Supra), Rajnesh Versus Neha (Supra), 25% of the net salary may be fixed as the amount of maintenance in favour of wife. In this regard, 25% of Rs. 24,500/- becomes about Rs. 6000/-. This amount will be payable from the date of application. The opposite party no. 2 may have an option to move an application for enhancement of the amount of maintenance before the appropriate forum at appropriate stage So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance is concerned, it may be divided into 12 equal monthly installments payable with the current amount of maintenance per month. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 6000/- per month from the date of application, on the place of Rs. 8000/-. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad