HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6029 of 2025 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist in the Court today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 11th August, 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 836 of 2023 (Kumari Harshita Singh & Another Vs. Sunahari Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Sadar, District-Shahjahanpur, whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 through their natural mother, namely, Deepa Singh, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month each to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application i.e. total Rs. 5,000/- per month. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are the real minor daughters of the revisionist. 5. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to the tune of total Rs. 5,000/- per month in total from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist as he takes tuition door to door and he somehow earns some money for his livelihood. He then submits that trial court, without any documentary evidence, has only on the basis of oral Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shiv Shankar Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sunehri Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) averments made before the trial court that the revisionist is running a coaching centre and earns Rs. 1 Lakh per month, has assessed wrong monthly income of the revisionist and has awarded the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 under the impugned judgment, which is not correct in the eyes of law. 6. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that since the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is too excessive and exorbitant and is not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other-hand, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and awarding total Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the date of filing of instant application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. Besides the above, learned A.G.A. submits that the revisionist is running a coaching cetnre and is receiving more than Rs. 1 Lakh per month, therefore, he is able to maintain his children i.e. opposite party nos.2 and 3. However, no documentary evidence has been led before the trial court from any side qua the aforesaid income of the revisionist. 9. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. have stated anything else on any other issue. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court finds that it is an admitted case that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are real minor daughters of the revisionist and as per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his children. 11. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court may record that no documentary evidence has been adduced during the course of trial that the revisionist works as fitter of aluminum glass, from which he receives handsome money. Without any documentary evidence available on record, the exact monthly income of the revisionist cannot be ascertained. Before the trial court the revisionist has admitted himself that he takes tuition from which he earns some money. As such, looking to the present scenario, cost of everything, this Court is constrained to assume that the revisionist CRLR No. 6029 of 2025 2 being an educated person, earns more than Rs. 20,000/- per month by taking tuition. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the children to penury. 13. Keeping in view the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras), this court is of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance allowance fixed by the court below is already in lower side as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and 25% of Rs. 20,000/- per month would be Rs. 5,000/- per month. As such, total Rs. 5,000/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance as awarded in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is just reasonable and realistic. 14. Consequently, this Court finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court partly allowing the application of opposite party nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 15. The present criminal revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. March 19, 2026 Sushil/- CRLR No. 6029 of 2025 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad