HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4098 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri L.K.Shukla learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, 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 09-05-2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Case No. 76 of 2022 (Smt. Sarita Devi and another vs. Sunil Kumar Yadav), whereby the learned Trial Court directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the minor son, opposite party no. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the amount awarded by the Trial Court is excessive and exorbitant, as the revisionist has no regular source of income and is suffering from certain ailments. He also invites the attention of the Court to page 45 of the paper book, wherein, during cross-examination before the Trial Court, opposite party no. 2 admitted that while doing labour work, she is hardly able to earn her livelihood and incurs Rs. 10,000/- towards the educational expenses of her son and Rs. 15,000/- for her own maintenance. The contention of the revisionist is that opposite party no. 2 further admitted in her cross- examination that she is earning almost Rs. 25,000/- per month, and on this ground alone, she is not entitled to receive maintenance. Except for this, no other argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Lavkush Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Sunil Kumar Yadav .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) revisionist. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposed the revision and submitted that the statement made by opposite party no. 2 in her cross-examination cannot be treated as proof of the income. Since she has been deserted by her husband, she is constrained to maintain herself and her minor child. He further submits that even if she is earning some income, that alone does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129. He also contends that the revisionist is running a garage business and earns a handsome amount from it. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned A.G.A., it is an admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and opposite party no. 3 is their minor son. It is also not on record that opposite party no. 2 is engaged in any regular job. However, during her cross-examination, she stated that Rs. 10,000/- is required for the education of her son and Rs. 15,000/- is required for her own maintenance. This statement cannot be treated as proof of her income. As far as the issue regarding separate living and her ability to maintain herself is concerned, the Trial Court, while deciding issue nos. 1 and 2, has categorically recorded its findings on the basis of the evidence adduced by both parties. Being a revisional court, this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings in place of those recorded by the Trial Court unless such findings are perverse or contrary to law. A perusal of the impugned judgment reflects that the findings of the Trial Court are based on facts and cannot be said to be incorrect in the eyes of law. 6. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the revisionist is a labourer, whereas opposite party no. 2 claims that he runs a garage. However, there is no documentary proof regarding the income of either party. Therefore, this Court considers it appropriate to treat the revisionist as a labourer engaged in motorcycle repair work. It would be reasonable to assume that CRLR No. 4098 of 2024 2 he earns approximately Rs. 700/- per day, i.e., Rs. 21,000/- per month. In Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that maintenance may be awarded up to 25% of the husband’s net monthly income. Accordingly, 25% of Rs. 21,000/- amounts to Rs. 5,250/-. 7. The revisionist/husband is an able-bodied person and, therefore, cannot shirk his pious obligation to maintain his wife and child. The maintenance awarded by the Trial Court of Rs. 5,000/- per month in total cannot be said to be excessive and is, in fact, on the lower side. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed. 9. In case, the revisionist has paid any amount towards the maintenance 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 pks CRLR No. 4098 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad