HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3029 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set aside/quash the judgment and order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad, in Case No. 268/12/2021 (Smt. Neetu Batham vs. Parmanand), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Principal Judge, while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party no. 2, directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of the application. 3.Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is suffering from heart disease and has no regular source of income. It is further submitted that the amount of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is excessive, as the revisionist is also maintaining his two daughters. He further stated that, apart from his children, he is also liable to maintain his aged parents. It is further contended that opposite party no. 2 is working as a teacher and earns Rs. 15,000/- per month, and hence, she is not entitled to any maintenance. It is also submitted that the revisionist had lent Rs. 1,00,000/- to his father-in-law, and when he demanded repayment, the opposite party no. 2, in connivance with her father, filed this false and fabricated case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to mount pressure on him. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajesh Kumar, Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Parmanand .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4.On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and contended that, considering the current inflation and cost of living, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or beyond the capacity of the revisionist. It was further argued that the revision is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the record as well as the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned court below, this Court proceeds to decide the matter. 6. It is an admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. It also appears from the judgment and findings recorded by the Trial Court that she is residing separately due to the neglect and conduct of the revisionist. The Trial Court has recorded detailed reasons for her separate living. Being a revisional court, this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings in place of those of the Trial Court unless the findings are perverse or contrary to law and facts. It is also not on record that opposite party no. 2 has any regular source of income sufficient for her maintenance. Although the learned counsel for the revisionist claimed that she is working as a teacher and filed some documents to support the same, a perusal of those documents reveals that, at present, she is not employed. Thus, this argument goes against the revisionist himself. 7. In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the husband is an able-bodied person, he cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his wife and children. In the present case, the revisionist has not claimed any physical disability; hence, it is presumed that he is hale and hearty. It is the pious and legal duty of the husband to maintain his wife. So far as his income is concerned, there is no documentary evidence on record to show his exact earnings. During the course of arguments, it was stated that he was previously employed as a teacher but is now jobless. 8. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra), even if the husband is presently unemployed, he cannot evade his obligation to CRLR No. 3029 of 2024 2 maintain his wife. Considering that even a daily wage labourer earns around Rs. 600/- per day, his notional monthly income would be approximately Rs. 18,000/-. In Rajnesh (supra) and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that maintenance allowance may be granted up to 25% of the husband’s net income. Accordingly, 25% of Rs. 18,000/- comes to Rs. 4,500/- per month. The amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month awarded by the Trial Court is therefore on the lower side. 9. Hence, the instant revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 13, 2025 pks CRLR No. 3029 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad