HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4482 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Girja Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Ghazipur, in Misc. Case No. 187 of 2021 (Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Ravindra Nath Bind), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (minor duaghter) till she attains the age of majority from the date of application. 4. The sole contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the amount of maintenance of allowance awarded in favour of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 of Rs. 15,000/- in total is excessive and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist as he has also liability of his other family members. It is further submitted that the admitted salary of the revisionist before trial court is of Rs. 48000/- per month but this facts has not been considered by the trial court while awarding the maintenance allowances. Except this no other argument has been raised on behalf of the revisionist. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submits that the revisionist is Sipoy in Indian Army and earns Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Girja Shanker Mishra, Kalp Dev Mishra, Pratiksha Rai Ravindra Nath Bind .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Rs. 60,000/- per month and as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (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 which comes to Rs. 15000/- per month. It is further submitted that the trial court after considering all aspect of the matter awarded the maintenance allowances of Rs.15000/- in total cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity but this revision being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 is his minor daughter. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, it reflects from the paragraph no. 9 of the impugned judgment that the opposite party no. 2 has submitted in her application before the trial court that the revisionist earns Rs. 60,000/- per month but there is no documentary evidence on record to show the income as alleged by the opposite party no.2, while the revisionist in his reply has admitted his income as Rs. 48,000/- per month, hence this Court is of the view that admitted income is based on the evidence before the trial court and the trial court should have been awarded the amount of maintenance after considering the income of the revisionist as admitted. Since there was no other documents regarding income of the revisionist has been recorded by the trial in the impugned judgment and in view of the above guidelines in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari (supra) of which 25% of the net income of the husband i.e. 48,000/- per months comes to Rs. 12,000/-. 7. Thus, in view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount awarded Rs. 15,000/- in total by the trial court is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and children but the amount of maintenance should be commensurate with the income of the husband. Hence the maintenance awarded by the court below seems to be excessive and deserves to be modified, hence it is reduced to Rs. 8000/- from Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) and to Rs. 4000/- from Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (daughter) payable from the date of application. 8. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 12,000/- from Rs. 15,000/- per month in total from the date of the application. CRLR No. 4482 of 2024 2 9. In case, the revisionist has paid any amount towards the maintenance alowances that shall be adjusted and if any arrears are yet to be paid by the revisionist, the same shall be paid in ten equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The rest nine instalments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. October 14, 2025 Akbar CRLR No. 4482 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad