Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105973 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 813 of 2025 Revisionist :- Harinandan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 71 of 2022, Computerized Case No. UPGK020001662022 (Kanchan Singh Versus Harinandan Singh), under Section 125 Cr. P.C., Police Station Compierganj, District Gorakhpur, by which application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. has been allowed. 3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party no.2 is wife of revisionist and living separately without any sufficient reasons. He further submitted that he is unemployed person. There is no any other source of income. He also submitted that learned trial court has assumed the income of revisionist Rs. 15,000/- per month on the basis of daily wages @ 450-500 per day. This assessment cannot be said to be correct. He further submitted that there is liability of his parent and sister and the amount fixed by the trail court is beyond his paying capacity, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the trial court and allow the revision. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. 5. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record, order passed by the learned trial court dated 20.11.2024, it appears that in this case the revisionist and opposite party no.2 are husband and wife. Their marriage were performed on 25.11.2020. Thereafter, she was subjected to demand of dowry and harassment by other members of his family and she was expelled from her, 'Sasural' and since then she is living in her 'Maika'. She filed the present application for maintenance. The revisionist did not pay any amount for expenses to the opposite party no.2 but filed a case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act with false allegations for divorce against the opposite party no.2. This also shows that he is not willing to keep the opposite party no.2 with him. Though, there is no material on record to show that the revisionist is earning any income, but it is evident that his father is lawyer and brother is working in police department. It shows that he has no financial liability of his parents, brother or sister. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has contended that opposite party no.2 has no income. Regarding income of the revisionist, the opposite party no.2 has stated that he was operating N.G.O. in New Delhi by which he was earning Rs. 60,000/- per month, but there is nothing on record to show about his income. Learned trial court has assumed the income of the revisionist on the basis of daily wages Rs. 400-500 per day and in view of such income, the amount fixed for maintenance Rs. 6000/- per month, cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. So far as the amount of maintenance to be payable from the date of application is concerned, it is in accordance with the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish Versus Neha and another, Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2021. Thus there appears no illegality of impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court and does not require any interference by this Court. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance is concerned, it shall be devided into 18 equal installments to be payable to the opposite party no.2 with the current amount of maintenance. 6. Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of finally at this stage. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad