Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118048 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 662 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vandana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Devendra Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dinesh Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and enhance the amount as claimed by the revisionist in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarded at least Rs. 50,000/- per month to the revisionist from the date of filing of application in Case No. 235 of 2023, (Vandana Vs. Vikrant Tiwari) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Police Station Bakewar, District Fatehpur or pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no. 2 is husband and works as Upper Sankiya Adhikari and gets salary Rs. 70,000/- per month. The revisionist is living separate from him due to neglect on the part of the opposite party no. 2 and she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided ex-parte by the learned trial court by order dated 22.11.2024 fixing the amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance that is disproportionate to the income of the husband and also less than sufficient. He relies his argument as per observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, that the amount of maintenance to the wife may extend to 25% of net salary of the husband. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that this case was decided ex-parte against which he has already filed an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. that is still pending before the learned trial court. He did not dispute the fact that he is working as Upper Sankiya Adhikari but expressed his inability to disclose the accurate salary of the opposite party no. 2. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of material on record, the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the revisionist is living separate from the husband due to his neglect and has no any source of income to support herself. There is no dispute about net salary Rs. 70,000/- per month even to the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also. The amount fixed by the learned trial court Rs. 8,000/- per month is less than sufficient according to the status of wife of an Officer and also disproportionate to the net salary as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, therefore, the amount of maintenance Rs. 8,000/- per month as fixed by the learned trial court is liable to be increased to Rs. 17,500/- per month. Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is increased to Rs. 17,500/- per month on the place of 8,000/- per month. It is made clear that this amount shall be subject to the outcome of the order to be passed on an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad