Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113444 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1306 of 2025 Revisionist :- Sonika And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Farid Ahmad,G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and enhance the maintenance awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor to the revisionists vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2025 in Misc. Criminal Case No.189 of 2021 (Sonkia & another vs. Amit Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the revisionist no.1 is wife and revisionist no.2 is minor daughter of the opposite party no.2. He further submitted that due to neglect on the part of the opposite party no.2 the revisionist is living in her house though it is matrimonial home. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 is working as Head Constable in I.T.B.P. and gets gross salary Rs.64,605/- per month and after deductions net salary is Rs.52,734/- per month. Out of the said net salary the learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.4000/- in favour of opposite party no.1 and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 which is less than sufficient and disproportionate to the income of the husband. He also submits that as per the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 the amount of maintenance to the wife may extend to the 25% of the net salary of the husband and the amount of Rs.4000/- per month is less than the sufficient, therefore, request to increase the amount of maintenance in favour of wife and child. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that revisionist nos.1 & 2 both are living in the house constructed by the opposite party no.2 himself and he took loan regarding which he is also paying installments. It is further contended that the revisionist no.1 makes harassment of members of the family of opposite party no.2 and they are living apart from him in village it shows that there is no harassment of the revisionist but it is on her part against the members of the family of the opposite party no.2. In this way, she is not entitled for maintenance. It is also contended that an application u/s 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has also been filed by the revisionist in which Rs.8000/- per month has been awarded as interim maintenance. In this way, the amount of maintenance in present case cannot be increased as total amount become Rs.14,000/- per month which is sufficient for the maintenance of revisionist no.1 and her minor daughter revisionist no.2. There is no illegality and impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the revisionist nos.1 & 2 are wife and minor daughter of opposite party no.2/husband who is working in I.T.B.P. and gets monthly salary Rs.64605/- per month and after deductions net pay is Rs.52734/- per month though the revisionists are living in the house constructed by the opposite party no.2 but he is not giving her the expense though he is under legal obligation to provide expense to his wife who is unable to maintain herself and also to the minor child. There is no any material on record to show that she is making any income and is able to maintain herself. It also appears that in an application u/s 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Rs.8000/- per month has been fixed as amount of interim maintenance in favour of revisionist no.1 and in the present case the amount of Rs.4000/- per month to wife and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of minor child has also been fixed but there is no any direction in the order in question that the amount of maintenance being received by the revisionist in other cases be subject to the adjustment. As per the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 the amount of maintenance to wife may extend to 25% of the net salary of the husband. In this way, the amount of maintenance in favour of wife is increased to Rs.10,000/- per month on the place of Rs.4000/- per month and in favour minor child revisionist no.2 Rs.5000/- per month on the place of Rs.2000/- per month, total Rs.15,000/- per month and the amount either for interim maintenance or maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to the adjustment to the amount in present case since the smaller amount will be adjusted in the larger amount. Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad