HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7084 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. A perusal of the office report shows that the matter was referred for mediation but on account of non depositing the required amount by opposite party no. 2 the proceedings before the Mediation Centre could not commence. 2. Heard Mr. Vishal Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Shivanshi Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. representing the State and Mr. Diwakar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2,3,4,5&6 and perused the material available on record. 3. Revisionists Smt. Jyoti and two others have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Revision challenging the impugned judgement and orders dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Banda (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024, Smt. Jyoti and others v. Awalendu Trivedi and others whereby the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the revisionist and directed the opposite party no. 2 to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as rent and maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month to revisionist no. 1 and Rs. 2000/- per month each to revisionist nos. 2&3, amounting to an aggregate sum of Rs. 13000/- per month. The payment of Rs. 5000/- per month towards rent was made subject to the revisionist no. 1 furnishing the rent receipts. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the present Criminal Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shashi Kant Shukla, Shivanshi Tiwari, Vivek Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Diwakar Shukla, G.A. Smt Jyoti And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Revision has been filed on the grounds that the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are even otherwise bad in law and on facts, both. It has, therefore, been prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the present revision be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that by way of supplementary affidavit, the revisionist has filed a copy of the khasra and Khatauni as S.A.-1 and the document relating to the house as S.A.-2. It is submitted that the aforesaid documents reflect that the father of opposite party no. 2 owns agricultural land and that opposite party no. 2 along with his mother owns a house bearing House No. 488/430A, Murai Tola, Fatehpur. Apart from the aforesaid documents, the revisionist has also filed the salary slip of opposite party no. 2, wherein his monthly income has been shown as Rs.21,600/-. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the Appellate Court failed to properly consider the income derived from the house and despite the actual financial position of opposite party no. 2, passed the impugned order. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the present criminal revision deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present revision and submitted that the liability to maintain the wife primarily rests upon the husband. The other family members may be held liable for domestic violence, if any proved against them, otherwise, the responsibility to maintain the wife is that of the husband. It is further submitted that, according to the revisionist herself, the monthly income of opposite party no. 2 is Rs.21,600/-. If the document filed as S.A.-2, particularly at page 12 of the supplementary affidavit, is taken into consideration, the standard rent of the house jointly owned by opposite party no. 2 and his mother is Rs.3,600/- per annum, which comes to approximately Rs.300/- per month. Thus, the total monthly income of opposite party no. 2 would be approximately Rs.21,750/-. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has directed payment of a total sum of Rs.13,000/- per month under the heads of rent and maintenance. Thus, the amount directed to be paid is more than 50% of the monthly income of opposite party no. 2, which is excessive and beyond his financial capacity. It is further submitted that the amount of CRLR No. 7084 of 2025 2 maintenance is more than the ratio provided by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 . Accordingly, it is contended that the present criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 7. When confronted with the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist could not satisfactorily overcome the same. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the monthly income of opposite party no. 2, as stated by the revisionist herself, is Rs.21,750/-. The amount directed to be paid towards rent and maintenance in aggregate is a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month. Thus, a substantial portion of the monthly income of opposite party no. 2 has been directed to be paid towards maintenance and rent. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the amount awarded by the Appellate Court cannot be said to be disproportionate against the interests of the revisionists so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revisionist has also failed to demonstrate any manifest illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no force in the present criminal revision. It is liable to be dismissed. 9. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. September 8, 2026 Brijesh Maurya CRLR No. 7084 of 2025 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad