Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38713 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1264 of 2024 Revisionist :- Avtar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.2.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1529 of 2022 under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby opposite parties no. 2 and 3 who are minor children of revisionist and opposite party no.2 are awarded Rs.7,000/- per month to each of them which is payable as interim maintenance and the same may be payable to opposite parties 3 and 4 up to their attainment of majority. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned court below has observed in the impugned order that according to the statement made the opposite party no.2 (Smt. Ranjeet Kaur) her monthly income is Rs.31,000/- whereas monthly income of opposite party no.2 is Rs.38,000/-, therefore, it appears that both parties are deriving income but the court below has awarded maintenance to the children to Rs.7,000/- per month to each of them and directed the revisionist to pay the interim maintenance to his minor children, which is not justifiable that because the liability to raise and nourish the children in lying on both parents. At least liability should be shared by both the parties in proportionate to their income. It is further submitted that apart from instant interim maintenance order revisionist is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the opposite parties no.3 and 4 in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act vide order dated 3.4.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bareilly. It is next submitted that opposite party no.2 has lodged a false criminal prosecution against the revisionist at false facts under Section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. in a complaint case. He further submitted that the revisionist is ready to live with his wife and children and he filed a suit for conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act on 11.7.2022 but opposite party no.2 has filed a divorce petition against the revisionist which is still pending. 3. Opposite party no.2 is highly educated lady who has completed her B.Lib and M.Lib qualification and she is posted in a better post in B.B.L. School, Bareilly. The opposite party no.2 has concealed her income in application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and she had not filed an affidavit of disclosure of income, assets and liabilities in compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569. She subsequently filed an affidavit after appearance of the revisionist in the case thus, she has concealed the material fact initially under her application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that there are number of cases that even if wife has been earning something on her own her husband cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his children and in present case court below has declined the prayer for maintenance made by his wife and only interim maintenance has been awarded to their minor children which cannot be said to be excess or exorbitant. The opposite party no.2 is providing education to opposite parties no. 3 and 4 (children) in a prestigious school and bears Rs.5,000/- per month for each of them as school fees only. He next submitted that the revisionist cannot be absolved from his responsibilities to maintain his minor children and to ensure the future of his minor children at least up to their attainment of majority. Therefore, revisionist is liable to maintain his children. 5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, fact and circumstances of the social and financial status of the back ground of the parties and other liabilities and their admission before the court below regarding their income and job, I find substance in contention of learned counsel for revisionist that it is joint responsibilities of both parents to maintain their minor children if both of them are earning in equivalent manner. Learned court below has estimated monthly salary of the Revisionist as Rs.31,000/-, therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned order is liable to be reduced to the some extent. It is directed that amount of maintenance in the present case is reduced from Rs. 7,000/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite parties no. 3 and 4 to each of them during pendency of maintenance or their attainment of majority, which ever is earlier. It is clarified that the observations made herein above are only for the purposes disposal of present revision and have no bearing for disposal of maintenance case on merits. Learned court below is at its discretion to award reasonable amount of maintenance to private respondents on the basis of evidence adduced during hearing of the case. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order stands modified, subject to other terms and condition imposed in the impugned order, which have not interfered. 7. The revision is partly allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Md Faisal Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad