HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5576 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.8.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Case No.282 of 2022(Smt. Nida Hashmi vs. Sayyed Amir Ali Hashmi) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Panwadi, District Mahoba. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, opposite party is wife of revisionist who was married to the revisionist in the year 2016. Later on, without any sufficient cause she started living in her 'maika' and moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2022 which was decided by the learned Trial Court on 19.8.2025 granting Rs.5000/- per month to opposite party No.2 from the date of application. Learned trial Court has committed error in fixing the amount from the date of application and not from the date of order. He further submits that the revisionist filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against wife which was decided in his favour, though he could not get it executed. He never subjected his wife to torture or harassment, even then she is living separately which cannot be said to be sufficient reason, therefore, requests to set aside the order dated 19.8.2025 passed by the learned trial Court or to reduce the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned trial Court since he is working as a labourer and gets Rs.4833/- per month as per certificate issued by Tehsildar, Kalpi, Jalaunat Orai. 4. Learned AGA opposed the argument made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 5. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA, perusal of record and order dated 19.8.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, it appears that admittedly, marriage of opposite party No.2 and the revisionist was solemnized in the year 2016 and on account of neglect and misbehaviour of her Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sushil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sayyed Amir Ali Hashmi .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) husband/the revisionist, she is living in her 'maika'. Panchayat was also convened on 24.8.2017 but the matter could not be resolved. Even in 'Panchayat', husband became aggressive. No any amount of arrears of maintenance was given to her by the revisionist. In this way, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient reason for the wife to live separately from the husband. 6. So far as income of the revisionist is concerned, he has said himself to be unemployed and filed income certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Kalpi, Jalaun at Orai showing his income as Rs.4833/- per month. If a person works as a labourer, even then he gets Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per day and, in a month Rs.12000/- to Rs.15,000/- . On which basis the Tehsildar has issued this income certificate, he may know better. Learned Trial Court has committed no error in fixing Rs.5000/- per month as the amount of maintenance in favour of wife assuming the revisionist to be a labourer. So far as grant of amount of maintenance from the date of application is concerned, it is in accordance with the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. 7. In this way, there appears no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 19.8.2025 passed by the learned trial Court. The revision being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 8. The Criminal revision is dismissed. September 24, 2025 P.P. CRLR No. 5576 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad