HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1869 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite parties, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2.This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., questioning the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 443 of 2021 (Smt. Divya Jaiswal and another vs. Saurabh Jaiswal) under Section 127 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Judge, while allowing the application ex parte, directed the revisionist to pay an enhanced maintenance amount of Rs.9,000/- per month to opposite party no.1 in place of Rs.8,000/- earlier, and Rs.6,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 in place of Rs.3,000/- earlier, thereby increasing the total maintenance by Rs.4,000/- after five years of the previous maintenance order. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the enhancement made by the learned Trial Court is excessive and not justified by the material on record. It is contended that the revisionist is merely an insurance agent working on a Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prateek Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Shri Krishna Tripathi Saurabh Jaiswal .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) commission basis and has no fixed income. It is further argued that the Trial Court did not consider the financial constraints of the revisionist and arbitrarily enhanced the maintenance amount, which is beyond his paying capacity. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 4.Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 has been passed after due consideration of all relevant factors. It is submitted that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and opposite party no.3 is his daughter, who is presently studying in Class XII, and her educational expenses have substantially increased. It is further submitted that the revisionist is permanently employed as a Manager with Punjab National Bank MetLife Insurance and also owns two four- wheelers, which fact is supported by documentary evidence (Paper Nos. 78 and 79). The Income Tax Returns of the revisionist for the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 show gross total incomes of Rs.6,03,024/- and Rs.6,87,358/- respectively, which clearly indicates that his income has progressively increased. Hence, the enhancement of Rs.4,000/- in total cannot be termed excessive. 5.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6.In Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that maintenance allowance can be granted up to 25% of the net income of the husband. Considering the material available on record, the annual income of the revisionist appears to be approximately Rs.6,00,000/-, which comes to Rs.15,000/- per month. The Trial Court has already fixed the total maintenance at Rs.15,000/- (Rs.9,000/- for opposite party no.1 and Rs.6,000/- for opposite party no.2). The amount so fixed is neither excessive nor unreasonable and is fully commensurate with the CRLR No. 1869 of 2024 2 income and status of the revisionist. 7.It is, however, made clear that in the event of any change in circumstances or financial condition in future, either party shall be at liberty to approach the Trial Court for appropriate modification in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. The criminal revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 17, 2025 pks CRLR No. 1869 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad