Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140129 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1358 of 2024 Revisionist :- Javed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abdul Mazeed,Mohd. Naseer Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd Arif Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Case No.505 of 2019 (Smt. Soni vs. Javed) P.S. Jahanabad, District Pilibhit, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court has allowed application filed by opposite party no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.4000/- per month to opposite party no.2 as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 1.10.2019 on or before the tenth day of each month. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the revisionist in the year 2019. Just after ten months of marriage, the relationship between the husband and wife i.e. revisionist and opposite party no.2 became strained and incompatible. Consequently, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Case No.505 of 2019 (Smt. Soni vs. Javed) P.S. Jahanabad, District Pilibhit. After hearing the parties and evidence was led, the trial court has passed the impugned order. Hence the present criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that just after the marriage, opposite party no.2 started misbehaving with the revisionist and other members of his family including his old parents and when she was insisted not to do the same, she left her matrimonial house in the year 2019 and started living in her parental house. Further it is submitted that opposite party no.2 is a working lady and she is running a tailoring and boutique shop and earns sufficient amount to maintain herself. Despite the aforesaid fact, opposite party no.2 filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. only in order to harass the revisionist. He has also submitted that revisionist is a labour by profession and the interim maintenance amount fixed by the trial court is too excessive and exorbitant, which he is not able to manage the same. The learned trial court has directed the revisionist to pay the amount of maintenance from the date of application instead of from the date of passing of the impugned order. 5. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that it would be in the interest of justice if the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance be/is directed to be paid in some easy equal installments. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case due to negligence on the part of the revisionist, opposite party no.2/wife is living separately and she is unable to maintain herself. In support of the plea taken by the revisionist that she is knowing the work of tailoring and beautician but there is no any material or evidence being brought on record before the trial court that she earns sufficient amount to maintain herself. Even otherwise, the revisionist is getting Rs.40,000/- per month, as he has adequate agricultural field from which he earns handsome amount. The maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month as awarded by the trial court in favour of wife cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., and also perused the record including the impugned order, it appears that opposite party no.2/wife is living separately from the revisionist due to his negligence on his part and is unable to maintain herself. There is nothing on record to show that she is making sufficient income to maintain herself by running a beauty parlour and tailoring shop inasmuch as the revisionist is getting Rs.40,000/- per month as from his agricultural field out of which he has been directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month to opposite party no.2/wife. There appears no illegality or impropriety being committed in the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. However considering the fact that the revisionist is a farmer, he is unable to pay total arrears of maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application till date on one stroke. 9. In such circumstances, it is directed that the revisionist shall pay the total arrears as awarded by the trial court in favour of opposite party no.2 in 12 equal installments on the 7th day of each calendar month. The first installment shall commence from 7th September, 2025. It is further directed that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 regularly from the next month i.e. September, 2025 as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment. 10. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad