HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 992 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. List revised. None present for the revisionist. 2. Heard Sri Harshit Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Case No.791 of 2021 (Smt. Roshni Soni vs. Vipin Soni) P.S. Konch District Jalaun under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court has allowed application filed by opposite party no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.10000/- per month to opposite party no.2 as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 19.11.2021 on or before the tenth day of each month. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the revisionist on 17.02.2016. Just after ten months of marriage, the relationship between the husband and wife i.e. revisionist and opposite party no.2 became strained and incompatible. Consequently, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Case No.791 of 2021 (Smt. Roshni Soni vs. Vipin Soni) P.S. Konch District Jalaun. After hearing the parties and evidence led, the trial court has passed the impugned order. Hence the present criminal revision. 5. Since no one is present for the revisionist, no argument has been raised on behalf of the revisionist. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as the counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Meenendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Harshit Pratap Singh, G.A. Vipin Soni .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) states that the revisionist is goldsmith who runs a jewellery shop. In counter affidavit at page no.17 annexing a receipt issued by Nagar Parishad, Rajnagar, District Chatarpur, M.P. in favour of revisionist- Vipin Soni and one Ashish Soni. Also at page-20 there is a photograph which reflects that the revisionist is sitting in his shop and some silver tray/ plates are kept under the counter. While allowing the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. it is recorded that after five years of marriage since the opposite party no.2 could not blessed with any child the opposite party no.2 being tortured and on account of negligence on the part of the revisionist, and the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is just proper and realistic. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, and also perused the record including the impugned order, it appears that as the revisionist has suspicion on the character of opposite party no.2/wife, she was being tortured on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 10 lacs and living separately from the revisionist due to negligence on his part and is unable to maintain herself. It is also pertinent from the judgment on record that a compromise taken place at police station where the parties reached the conclusion that opposite party no.2 was left the house of the revisionist while the revisionist never tried to take her back from her parental house. The reasons recorded by the trial court is satisfactory and there appears no illegality or impropriety being committed in the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. However considering the fact that there is no regular source of income of opposite party no.2/ wife to maintain herself. While deciding the issue no.4, the learned trial court recorded that the revisionist has three houses from where he earned Rs.25000/- as rent and there is also two khatauni in favour of the revisionist whereas his name was mentioned as tenure holder. Keeping in view the status of income of the revisionist from different sources, the trial court reached the conclusion that the revisionist earns approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month and In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the total income of the husband which comes to Rs. 10000/- per month which is just proper and realistic. CRLR No. 992 of 2024 2 9. However, considering the facts that the amount of maintenance was paid from the date of filing of application, the revisionist might be is unable to pay total arrears of maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application till date on one stroke. 10. In such circumstances, it is directed that the revisionist shall pay the total arrears as awarded by the trial court in favour of opposite party no.2 in 10 equal installments on the 7th day of each calendar month. The first installment shall commence from 7th October, 2025. It is further directed that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 10000/- per month to opposite party no.2 regularly from the next month i.e. October, 2025 as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment. 11. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of. September 10, 2025 C. MANI CRLR No. 992 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad