Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144230 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 991 of 2025 Revisionist :- Dr. Shripati Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is the first wife, married in the year 2018 with the revisionist. On account of matrimonial dispute, the opposite party no.2 started living separate from the revisionist from the year 2019 and filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for maintenance against the revisionist, which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 05.02.2025 fixing the amount Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of application to the date of order and Rs. 35,000/- per month from the date of order. The opposite party no.2 is living separate from him without any sufficient reason and claimed for maintenance. He also submitted that she treated with cruelty to the revisionist that was the reason he filed a case for divorce against the opposite party no.2, which was decided ex-parte and decree of divorce was granted in favour of revisionist, against which she has filed an appeal. After elapse of period of appeal, the revisionist entered into second marriage and had issue. He further submitted that the revisionist is M.B.B.S. Doctor and now continuing his study for post graduate. Likewise, the opposite party no.2 is also qualified Doctor having M.B.B.S. Degree and runs a clinic and maternity home. He also submitted that she was working in the Railway Department prior to the marriage and is able to maintain herself by making income even though the learned trial court has allowed the maintenance that is illegal. On the other hand revisionist has no any regular income, since he is continuing his study. The earning being made by him is not sufficient to make payment as fixed by the learned trial court to the opposite party no.2, second wife and children, therefore, request to set aside the order dated 05.02.2025 and reduce the amount as fixed by the learned trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer and contended that opposite party no.2 was ill-treated in the house of the revisionist that was the reason she started living separate from him. They also contended that the revisionist has several clinics by which he makes handsome income. He filed a case for divorce and obtained ex- parte decree and also entered into second marriage which shows his neglect towards wife-opposite party no.2. He has sufficient income to maintain his wife. He has filed ITR by showing the amount less year to year only for the purpose of frustrating the claim of the wife. The opposite party no.2 is under mental depression and not in a position to run a clinic and make any income, but unable to maintain herself. Learned trial court while passing the order in question, has considered all these facts and circumstances of the case and then fixed the amount of maintenance as aforesaid. 4. On considering the facts and circumstances, 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 05.02.2025, it appears that opposite party no.2-wife is living separate from the revisionist due to his neglect and revisionist has filed divorce petition, which has been decreed ex-parte against the opposite party no.2, against which she has filed an appeal, that is still pending before this Court. The ITR filed by the revisionist show his income. The revisionist and opposite party no.2 both are qualified Doctors and there is no any material on record to show the accurate income of both the parties. Since the revisionist has entered into second marriage and have child, therefore, his liability towards them can also not be ignored while fixing the amount in favour of first wife. The opposite party no.2 is also qualified Doctor and have capacity to make earning while practicing as Doctor. In this way, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount so fixed by the learned trial court i.e. Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of application to the date of order and Rs. 35,000/- from the date of order is liable to reduce to Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of application. Thus the amount of maintenance as fixed by the learned trial court is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of application as per observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Rajnish Versus Neha and other (2021) 2 SCC 324. 5. The present criminal revision is partly allowed. The amount already received by the opposite party no.2-wife as interim maintenance or maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad