HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3786 of 2015 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Heard Ms. R.U. Rinki Renu, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. However, none appeared to press this revision on behalf of opposite party no.2, even in the revised call. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist being aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Criminal Misc. Case No.176 of 2013(Smt. Noor Afja Vs. Ragib Ali), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Alapur, District Budaun. By the said order the claim for maintenance raised by the revisionist was partly accepted and accordingly the respondent no.2 was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the revisionist, from the date of order. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist is the wife of opposite party no.2 and there are some matrimonial dispute between them. He further submits that the revisionist-wife had filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun with the prayer for granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid by opposite party no.2. He further submits that learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun had partly accepted the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist vide order dated 14.07.2015 and the amount of maintenance had been awarded only Rs.2,000/-, which is so Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Leena Srivastava, R.U. Rinki Renu Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : N I Zafri, Sadrul Islam Jafri Smt. Noor Afja .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) meager. He further submits that aggrieved with the impugned order dated 14.07.2015 the present revision has been field before this Hon'ble Court with the prayer to enhance the amount of maintenance from Rs.2,000/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month, from the date of application i.e. 30.07.2007, instead of the date of order i.e. 14.07.2015. 4. A bare perusal of the judgment and order dated 14.07.2015 challenged in this revision shows that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun, after considering that though the revisionist-wife claimed Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance, her claim was not accepted in its entirety. The learned court below had also considered that revisionist-wife did not adduce any evidence before the court below to prove that opposite party no.2- husband was having any source of income. The court below assessed the income of opposite party no.2-husband was of Rs.7,500/- per month and had awarded the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the revisionist-wife from the date of order. 5. Therefore, looking into entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find that aforesaid amount awarded by the court below to the revisionist-wife as maintenance is not meager, looking at the income assessed by the court below of the opposite party no.2-husband, the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. No other point has been argued before this Court. 7. In view of above, this Court finds no merit in this revision and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. The revision is dismissed accordingly. October 14, 2025 VKG CRLR No. 3786 of 2015 2 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad