HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1338 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Shubham Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Visheshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 25.11.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 281 of 2018 (Sunita and another vs. Pradeep), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Rampur, Karkhana, District Deoria whereby the revisionist has directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 2500/- per month each to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) from the date of application dated 16.05.2018. 3. The sole argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is unemployed and having no source of income. The opposite party no.2 along with her minor daughter (opposite party no.3) live separately in her parental house without any plausible reason. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is a farmer and the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is too excessive and not in commensurate with the income of the revisionist. All these factors were not taken into consideration by learned court below while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set-aside the order passed by learned court below and allow the revision and reduce the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the opposite party no.2 & Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Surendra Mohan Mishra Pradeep .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 3 is legally wedded wife and daughter of the revisionist respectfully. It is further contended that there is no documentary evidence on record to show the income of the revisionist as he claimed himself as a labour while he has approximately one bigha of agricultural land. The opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are living separately on the part of negligence of the revisionist. The amount of maintenance of Rs. 2500/- each to the wife and minor daughter cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned court below dated 25.11.2023, it transpires that opposite party no.2 along with her minor daughter (opposite party no.3) were living separately, subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry i.e. one motorcycle and the amount to the tune of Rs.50,000/- . The learned trial court while deciding the issue no.3 has categorically recorded the reasons for living separately. Being revisional court, this Court has to refrain from re- appreciate the evidence recorded by the trial court. However it is pious duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife and daughters, but there should be a balance between the income and responsibility of the husband. The provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial to the women, hence it was inacted for the protection of the women and children from the despair, destitution and frustration. However there is no documentary evidence on record regarding the income of the revisionist even if he is considered as a labour as he claimed in his reply filed before the trial court, he would easily earn Rs. 500/- per day (lump-sum) which would comes to Rs. 15000/- per month. In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the total income of the husband. 6. Keeping in view of the income of revisionist Rs. 4000/- per month, it is considered opinion of this Court that the amount of maintenance has been fixed by the learned court below is excessive as the per the income of the revisionist, hence it is reduced to Rs. 2000/- per month each in place of Rs. 2500/- to the opposite party no.2 and Rs. 2000/- per month in place of Rs. 2500/- per month to opposite party no.3 (minor daughter), payable from the date of filing of application. CRLR No. 1338 of 2024 2 7. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 2000/- per month each from the date of application, in place of Rs. 2500/- each. 8. The amount received by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment. 9. 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 in one stroke. 10. 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 nos.2 & 3 in 15 equal installments on the 7th day of each calendar month. The first installment shall commence from 7th October, 2025. It is further directed that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 2000/- per month each to opposite party nos.2 & 3 regularly from the next month i.e. October 2025 as awarded by this Court. September 10, 2025 C. MANI CRLR No. 1338 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad