HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2072 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. None is present for the revisionist. 3. Heard learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. 4. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Prayagraj, in Maintenance Case No. 495 of 2013 (Anita Pal and another Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pal), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court has awarded Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the opposite parties no.2 and 3, out of which Rs.3,000/- to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.3,000/- to the opposite party no.3 the minor daughter of the opposite party no.2, from the date of application. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist is running a tent house and a grocery shop and earns handsome amount of Rs.80,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 was being tortured in her matrimonial house on account of demand of additional dowry. In this regard a panchayat was also held between the parties but the behaviour of the in-laws of the revisionist has not been changed and that is why she has left her matrimonial house and started living at her parental house to avoid marpeet and torture. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dileep Kumar, Ram Asre Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Santosh Singh, Vijay Chand Yadav Dinesh Kumar Pal .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is a house wife and she has no source of income, therefore, she is unable to maintain herself and the amount awarded by the trial court is just and proper keeping in view the current inflation, medical and other misc. expenses for living etc. 7. Learned AGA has also adopted the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 8. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the record. It is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and the opposite party no.3 is the minor daughter of the revisionist. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party no.2 has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that she is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist and in this regard categorical finding has been recorded by the trial court. 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. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the detailed reasoning has been recorded by the trial court which cannot be said to be against the fact and law of the present case. So far as income of the revisionist is concerned, the revisionist is running a tent house and grocery shop, however, there is no documentary evidence with regard to the exact income of the revisionist but in the cross-examination P.W.1-opposite party no.2 has stated that her husband is running a tent house and RO Water shop. It also reflects from the material on record at page no.53, which is the cross- examination of DW-1, in which he admitted that the tent house is being run by his brother. He further admitted that he runs the RO Water Machine and supplies the RO Water in the society. 10. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the revisionist is a able bodied person in the pious city like Prayagraj, he runs the business of supply of RO Water and also helps in the tent house being run by his brother and from those business, it can be presumed that the revisionist will earn sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, therefore, keeping in view of the inflation rate, medical expenses, fooding, lodging expenses and other misc. expenses for living in the society, the amount of Rs.6,000/-per month (out of which, Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.3) awarded by the trial court as maintenance in favour of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 cannot be said to be excessive, therefore, the instant revision lacks merit and deserves to be CRLR No. 2072 of 2024 2 dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision being bereft of merit is dismissed. 12. It has been apprised by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that vide impugned order dated 02.02.2024, revisionist was directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 from the date of application but till date he has not paid a single penny to them, the amount of Rs.8,76,000/- is outstanding as arrears against the revisionist. Keeping in view the huge amount of arrears, the revisionist is directed to pay the amount of arrears to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 in twenty equal instalments. The first installment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025 and the rest 19 instalments shall be paid in fifteenth of each calendar month. September 16, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 2072 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad