HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3654 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Prabhu Narain Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur, in Case No. 395 of 2017 (Sahin Bano vs. Mohd. Aziz), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2. 3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a labourer engaged in plumbing work, and his employment is irregular, as he sometimes gets work and sometimes remains jobless. He has no regular source of income. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is his legally wedded wife. It is further submitted that the revisionist is willing to pay maintenance, but the amount awarded by the trial court is excessive and not commensurate with his income. 4.On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mahendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prabhu Narain Tiwari Mohd Azim .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 2 as well as the learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist. However, they did not dispute the fact that the revisionist is a labourer. It is further submitted that the trial court, after considering all aspects of the matter, awarded maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be excessive or beyond his capacity, and therefore, the present 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 and the impugned order, it is an admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. As regards the quantum of maintenance, the trial court awarded a total maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2 without assigning specific reasons. It is also an admitted position that the revisionist, being a human being, cannot be expected to work every day without rest. 6.Thus, in view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- awarded by the court below is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife, but the amount of maintenance should be in proportion to his income. Hence, the maintenance awarded by the court below appears excessive and deserves to be modified. Accordingly, it is reduced from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month, payable to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) from the date of the application. 7. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed. The amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- 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. CRLR No. 3654 of 2024 2 9. As regards arrears of maintenance, the same shall be paid in five equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15th November, 2025, and the remaining instalments shall be paid on or before the 15th day of each succeeding 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. 5,000/- per month as directed by this Court. October 14, 2025 pks CRLR No. 3654 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad