HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1510 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya in Case No. 54 of 2016 (Smt. Madhu Vs. Upendra Kumar) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Kotwali, District- Auraiya, by which the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application. 3. The sole argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the amount of maintenance as awarded by the trial court is excessive as the revisionist is not doing any work. He is unemployed right now and has no permanent source of earning. However, the revisionist has admitted that the opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife and further states that there is huge amount of arrears against him, which he cannot pay in one stroke, therefore, it may be divided in easy instalments. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State-opposite party no.1 has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionist and stated that the amount of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the trial court in the present scenario and cost of living is not excessive, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. However, the learned AGA has fairly conceded that at present arrears of Rs.12,00,000/- is due against the revisionist. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prashant Sharma, Surendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Upendra Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties and of learned AGA and perused the judgment and order dated 04.01.2024 of the trial court, it is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. So far as opposite party no.2 is living separately is concerned, in this regard the trial court has recorded categorical finding. However, no other argument has been advanced on behalf of the revisionist. This Court being the Revisional Court, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also substitute its own finding in place of findings of fact recorded by the trial court on the issue in question unless the finding is completely perverse and against the facts and law. 6. The main question raised in this case is that whether the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month is excessive or not. However, no documentary evidence is on record to show the income of the revisionist but it is admitted that the revisionist has a degree of B. Tech. and a person having technical skills cannot be said to be sitting idle without work, therefore, keeping in view the inflation rate, cost of living, the amount of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the trial court as maintenance in favour of the opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. The instant criminal revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision being bereft of merit is dismissed. 8. It has been apprised by the learned counsel for the parties that there is huge amount of arrears, which are to be paid by the revisionist, which cannot be paid in one stroke, therefore, it is divided in twenty four equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The rest twenty three instalments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. September 22, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 1510 of 2024 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad