HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3733 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1.Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal, Chandausi, in Case No. 88 of 2021 (Smt. Anita and another vs. Rambabu), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. moved by the opposite party no. 2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month in place of Rs. 5,000/- which was awarded earlier by order dated 30.06.2006 in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the amount enhanced by the Trial Court is excessive. It is submitted that the revisionist has now retired, and his pension has been stopped due to certain reasons. The enhanced amount is nearly three times the earlier maintenance Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Shivangi Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shashi Kant Pandey Rambabu .....Revisionist(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Except for the aforesaid submission, no other argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as the learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. They submitted that the income of the revisionist was assessed at Rs. 41,000/- by the Trial Court at the time of enhancement, and the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month is commensurate with his income. 5. In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowance can be granted up to 25% of the net income of the husband. 6. In the present case, the Trial Court, while allowing the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., assessed the income of the revisionist at Rs. 41,000/- per month. Therefore, 25% of his income comes to Rs. 10,250/-. Hence, the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Trial Court is excessive and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of maintenance deserves to be reduced. The order dated 20.06.2024 is modified to the extent that the opposite party no. 2 shall receive Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. 7. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed, and the amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month, payable from the date of the application. 8. The amount received by the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment. 9. As regards arrears of maintenance, the same shall be paid in CRLR No. 3733 of 2024 2 two equal monthly instalments, as stated by learned counsel for the opposite party that only Rs. 10,000/- remains due towards arrears. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15th November, 2025, and the remaining instalment shall be paid on or before the 15th day of the following month. In addition to the payment of arrears, the revisionist shall continue to pay monthly maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month as directed by this Court. October 14, 2025 pks CRLR No. 3733 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad