Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130857 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 582 of 2025 Revisionist :- Mudit Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Kumar Sharma,Pandey Balkrishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Case is taken up as mentioned case. 2. Notice served by the learned counsel for the revisionist upon learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, is taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Agra in Maintenance Case No. 1118 of 2019 (Smt. Nidhi Sharma and others Versus Mudit Sharma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra whereby the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Agra has dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for opposite party No.2 and allowed the application for opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and has directed the revisionist to deposit Rs. 7000/- per month each for the opposite party No. 3 and 4 (Total Rs. 14,0000/- per month) until they attain majority. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no.2 is wife of revisionist and the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are minor daughters. He further submitted that without any sufficient cause, the opposite party no.2 is living separate with opposite party nos. 3 and 4 the minor daughters. He also submitted that opposite party no.2 is highly qualified lady having M.B.A. degree and makes handsome earning. In her affidavit, she has disclosed her income Rs.17,000/-per month and Rs. 1,20,000/- as other allowances. 6. On the other hand, revisionist is also M.B.A. degree holder and was working in Gujarat and earning Rs. 48,000/- per month prior to litigation between the parties but now due to disturbance, he is not in job and dependent on his parents. He has also disclosed that from the year 2022 he became jobless, now he is unemployed and has no source of income. The opposite party no.2 is able to maintain herself and also minor daughters. The learned trial court, without considering the source of income of the revisionist fixed Rs. 7000/- per month as the amount of maintenance for each child (total Rs. 14,000/-) that is excessive and more than paying capacity of the revisionist, therefore, request to reduce the amount of maintenance as fixed by the learned trial court. 7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that revisionist is also highly qualified and has capacity to make earning and is under legal obligation to maintain his minor children. The amount fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. 8. On 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 11.12.2024, it appears that admittedly the opposite party nos. 2 is wife and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are minor daughters of the revisionist, those are living with opposite party no.2 the wife, who is working as Senior Co-ordinator in Agarwal Publication and getting Rs.17,000/- per month and Rs. 1.20.000/- as other allowances. On the other hand, revisionist was getting Rs. 48,000/- per month when he was working in Gujarat but as per his statement, in the year 2022, he resigned from his job due to disturbance and now he is un-employed and makes no income at all. There is no any other material on record to show income of the revisionist. 9. Since, the revisionist is also M.B.A. Degree holder and being able bodied person is under legal obligation to maintain his minor children till their attaining majority and he cannot avoid himself from the liability to maintain them only on the basis that he is unemployed. Where husband and wife both have equal qualification and capacity to earn, the liability of children is to be borne by both persons. It cannot be shifted to one side. In view of earning capacity of the wife as well as the revisionist, the amount of maintenance as fixed by the learned trial court is liable to be reduced. 10. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 5000/- per month for each child (total Rs. 10,000) per month from the date of application. 11. The amount received as interim maintenance or as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad