HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1628 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist in Court today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record. 3. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.208 of 2020 (Smt. Reena Vs. Rajesh Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party No.2 is wife of revisionist who is living separately from him without any sufficient cause and filed application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by learned trial court vide order dated 01.03.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance as Rs.15,000/- per month though there is no income of the husband. He also submits that wife is operating beauty parlor and earning income of Rs.2,00,000/- per month, therefore, she is able to maintain herself as having sufficient source of income. In this case learned trial court has fixed the amount which is excessive and beyond the paying capacity of the husband and has not made any assessment of the income of the revisionist, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and reduce the amount of maintenance. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Birendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Gupta, G.A. Rajesh Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that due to neglect of the revisionist, the opposite party No.2 the wife is living separately from him in her Mayka. She was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and harassment on the part of the revisionist that is the reason she started living separately. There was compromise between the parties in which the revisionist agreed to keep the wife/opposite party No.2 in well manner but did not comply the terms of the compromise. He has not given any money to the opposite party No.2 for her maintenance. He has also admitted this fact during his examination before learned trial court. The opposite party No.2 is not running any beauty parlor but she is unemployed. The revisionist has concealed his income before learned trial court and did not disclose it though he is financially well person and having sufficient source of income. He runs a milk dairy and cultivation. He has residential houses which have been given on rent. Learned trial court fixed the amount to Rs.15,000/- that cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. 6. On considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record, the order passed by learned trial court dated 01.03.2025, it appears that due to neglect on the part of the revisionist, opposite party No.2 is living apart from him. There was compromise between the parties in which the revisionist agreed not to ill treat the opposite party No.2 but did not comply. There is no material on record to show that opposite party No.2 is running a beauty parlor. No question was asked by the revisionist to her during her cross-examination before trial court that she is running beauty parlor and making income of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. There is photograph showing the beauty parlor but only on the basis of photograph, it cannot be said that beauty parlor is being operated by the opposite party No.2. As per admission of the revisionist, he has not given any money to her for her maintenance. In his affidavit regarding assets and liability, he has not disclosed his real income but he concealed before the learned trial court that is the reason learned trial court has fixed amount of maintenance on guess. 7. In considered opinion of this Court, the revisionist being able body person is under legal obligation to maintain his wife who is living apart from him with sufficient reason. The amount of Rs.15,000/- appears to be excessive since there is nothing on record to show accurate income of the revisionist. Therefore, this amount is reduced to Rs.8,000/- per month in place of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of application. CRLR No. 1628 of 2025 2 8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. September 15, 2025 R.S. Tiwari CRLR No. 1628 of 2025 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad