HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1258 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Dilip Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Case No. 1026 of 2021 (Beena Yadav and another Vs. Chandrajeet Yadav), whereby the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance from the date of application. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the opposite party o.2 is his legally wedded wife and the opposite party no.3 is her minor daughter-Km. Sejal. Learned counsel further submitted that opposite party no.2 left her matrimonial home and started living with her parental house without sufficient reason. The opposite party no.2 is highly educated lady, she is a teacher in Ram Charittar Inter College, Palhamau and earns Rs.20,000/- per month and able to maintain herself. The revisionist is an unemployed. He has no source of income. Learned counsel further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2023. In the last, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the maintenance awarded by the trial court is excessive and is not in commensurate to his income, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the trial court deserves to be s et aside and quashed. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dilip Kumar Dubey, Dinesh Kumar Dubey, G.A. Chandrajeet Yadav .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that the opposite party no.2 remains at matrimonial house for about ten years and from their wedlock one baby girl was born. If she had any intention not to live with the revisionist, she would have left her matrimonial house much earlier. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submits that the revisionist has illicit relationship with his elder sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and on account of this very reason, the opposite party no.2 was being harassed and tortured by the revisionist including his other family members for want of additional dowry i.e. why she is living separately from her husband. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submits that the revisionist is running a dairy form and he has sufficient means to earn, therefore, the maintenance awarded by the trial court is not excessive and the present revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. Keeping in view of the facts, circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties as well as of learned AGA, it appears that there is no dispute with regard to their relation as husband and wife. So far as contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the opposite party no.2 is living separately without any reason is concerned, in para-17 of the impugned order the trial court has mentioned that due to illicit relation with elder sister-in-law (Bhabhi) the opposite party no.2 was being tortured and harassed that is why she is living separately from her husband. These are the findings of fact which have been categorically recorded by the trial court and therefore, this Court has no occasion to re-appreciate that findings of fact, again. Further, the fact that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband without any valid reason, could not be proved before the trial court. 6. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the trial court in para- 36 of its judgment recorded that paper no.36-Kha which was obtained through I.G.R.T. portal, has been produced by the opposite party no.2, on which a report has been submitted by the Commercial Tax Officer, wherein it has been mentioned that the revisionist has 22 buffaloes and 30 cows and running a dairy and from it the revisionist earns approximately Rs.3,000/- per day. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite party no.2 is having any source of income. 7. However, there is nothing on record with regard to the income of the revisionist but keeping in view the fact that the revisionist is running a dairy CRLR No. 1258 of 2024 2 having 22 buffaloes and 30 cows and his income has been assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer as Rs.3,000/- per day, therefore, the maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be excessive, as such, the impugned order under challenge does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed. September 1, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 1258 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad