Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72893 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 846 of 2025 Revisionist :- Omprakash Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and quashed the order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 1284 of 2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., (Smt. Manorama Devi Vs. Sri Omprakash Singh). It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the revisionist is husband of opposite party no. 2 who is living apart without any reasonable excuse though marriage was performed in the year 1983. A daughter was also born from the wedlock and was living with opposite party no. 2. He also submits that a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by the revisionist in which Rs. 5,000/- per month was directed to be paid as interim maintenance which he paid regularly and that case was also decided finally but the wife/opposite party no. 2 is not ready to live with him which shows that she herself is living apart from him without any reasonable excuse. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that there are some other liabilities on the revisionist to meet and the amount so fixed by the learned trial court is out of his paying capacity. He further submits that now he is retired person from the Army (Assam Rifles) and gets pension Rs. 24,745/- per month out of which the learned trial court without considering all these facts awarded the amount of maintenance fixing the amount Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of order and Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of application to the date of order, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and reduce the amount of maintenance. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case wife/opposite party no. 2 is living separate from the revisionist/husband due to his neglect. It is also contended that there was a daughter living with the opposite party no. 2/wife. The revisionist neglected to maintain both of them except amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month was paid by him which was directed by the learned trial court as interim maintenance. He did not make payment of any amount for expenses of wife and daughter. Now, he is a retired person and gets Rs. 24,745/- per month as pension and he also has agricultural land from which he makes earnings. In this way, it cannot be said that the amount so fixed by the learned court is beyond the paying capacity of the revisionist. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 23.11.2024, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 was living with her daughter apart from the revisionist in her Maika. He did not make any payment for expenses of wife and daughter except Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance which was directed to be paid under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act by the learned trial court. Now, the revisionist is getting Rs. 24,745/- per month as pension after retirement from the Army and he has agricultural land, details of which has been recorded by the learned trial court in the order itself. In addition to the amount of his pension, there is income from the agricultural land also which shows that the revisionist is capable in making payment of amount of maintenance to the wife/opposite party no. 2 as fixed by the learned trial court. The learned trial court assessed the income of the revisionist Rs. 40,000/- per month out of which Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance was fixed from the date of application and from the date of application to the date of order Rs. 7,000/- per month. The amount so fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient in view of status of living of wife in comparison to the husband. As a result, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 23.11.2024 but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad