HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7472 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ankit Agarval, learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA representing State-opposite party no. 1 and perused the record. 2. Even though the name of Mr. Bijay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate is duly published in the cause list as counsel for opposite party no. 2 but neither he nor anyone on his behalf is present to oppose the present criminal revision. 3. Revisionist Mohd. Rashid has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Revision assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 21.05.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in Maintenance Case No. 1113 of 2021, Smt. Muskan and another Vs. Mohammad Rashid under section 125 of Cr.P.C., P.S. Agota, District Bulanshahr wherein the trial court allowing the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and fastened the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no. 3 as monthly maintenance from the date of institution of application for maintenance. 4. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present criminal revision has been filed on the grounds that impugned judgment and order has been passed without considering the material available on record, without considering the actual financial condition of the parties, it based on surmises and conjectures and a prayer for setting aside the impugned judgment and order and allowing the present criminal revision has been Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ankit Agarval Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bijay Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Mohamamd Rashid .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) made. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that, in the concluding part of paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment, the trial court has observed that the revisionist is a healthy young man, earns his livelihood through labour and business of meat, so he is capable of maintaining his wife and child. It is submitted that, on the basis of the aforesaid observation, the trial court fixed the amount of maintenance, without properly ascertaining the actual income of the revisionist. Learned counsel further submitted that, in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that, before fixing the amount of maintenance, the Court must ascertain the actual or notional income of the husband. However, in the present case, the trial court failed to do so. It is, thus, contended that, in view of the above, the present criminal revision deserves to be allowed by this Court. 6. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the present criminal revision and submitted that the legal requirement of ascertaining the actual income of husband before fixing the maintenance amount is mandatory where the maintenance amount seems to be excessive. The present maintenance amount is too meager to maintain two persons in dignified manner. The said amount seems to be insufficient to fulfil the basic needs of two persons even at government standard. In aforesaid conspectus, any interference by this Court in impugned judgment and order will cost serious injustice to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. It is thus contended that the present criminal revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 7. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that, while fixing the amount of maintenance, the Court must remain attentive of the actual economic condition of the parties. If the Court fixed an amount of maintenance which is excessive having regard to the basic needs and reasonable requirements of a person in whose favour such maintenance is awarded, the said amount of maintenance must necessarily be determined by keeping in view the comparative living standards of the parties. But where the amount of maintenance awarded is too meagre to maintain the CRLR No. 7472 of 2025 2 claimants in other words if the maintenance amount is a minimum such amount cannot be challenged by husband only on the basis of non ascertaining the actual or notional income of the husband. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any good or sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the present criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. September 9, 2026 Arti CRLR No. 7472 of 2025 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad