HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1513 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists, Shri Anurag Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-opposite party no. 1 and perusal the material on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-1, Mau in Criminal Case No. 148 of 2019 (Smt. Tabassum and others Vs. Ahsan Ahmad) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Mohammadabad Gohna, District- Mau, by which the application of the revisionists filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance to the revisionists no.1 to 6 from the date of application and further directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.1000/- per month to the revisionist no.1 as maintenance and Rs.500-500 each to the revisionists no.2 to 6 (till they attains the age of majority), from the date of order. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists states that the amount awarded by the trial court is meagre. He further states that even the opposite party no.2 is considered as labour, on this premise too, the amount awarded by the trial court is in lower side, except this no other contention has been raised. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the revisionist no.1-Smt. Tabassum along with her all minor children is living in his house and since the opposite party no.2 is a labour, he has also responsibility of his other members, therefore, the amount awarded by the trial court in view of the number of the family members cannot be said to be Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajeet Singh, Anil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Upadhyay, G.A. Smt Tabassum And 5 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) meagre. However, he has fairly conceded that the amount of Rs.500/- each awarded to the revisionists no.2 to 6 appears to be meagre but the family is big, hence it is out of capacity of the opposite party no.2 to pay the enhanced amount. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and states that keeping in view the members of family of the revisionists, the amount awarded by the trial court is in lower side. 6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it transpires that the revisionists along with her five minor children is living in the house of the opposite party no.1, which fact is evident from page-23 of the paper book. It is also admitted that the revisionist no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and revisionist nos. 2 to 6 are the minor children of the revisionist no.1. Admittedly, the family in big and there is no any documentary evidence on record to show that the opposite party no.2 is in some permanent job and having regular source of income. 7. On previous date i.e. 21.08.2025 the revisionist was directed to file some evidence regarding income of the opposite party no.2 but today when the argument were in progress, learned counsel for the revisionists admitted that there is no document in their possession to show the regular income of the opposite party no.2, therefore, it is clear that the opposite party no.2 is a labour. Keeping in view the status of the opposite party no.2 as labour, this Court is of the considered view that keeping in view the present scenario and cost of living, a labour can easily earn Rs.600/- per day, in this way, the opposite party no.2 earns Rs.18,000/- per month and as per the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, 25% of the net salary/income of the husband can be fixed as maintenance, which comes to Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the present status of living in the society Rs.4500/- per month would appear realistic, just and reasonable, hence the amount of Rs.3,500/- per month awarded by the trial court is enhanced to Rs.4,500/-, out of which Rs.2,000/-shall be paid to the revisionist no.1 and Rs.500/- per month to CRLR No. 1513 of 2024 2 each children i.e. to the revisionist nos. 2 to 6 from the date of the impugned order dated 25.01.2024. The impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is partly allowed. 9. It has been apprised by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there is huge amount of arrears, which are to be paid by the opposite party no.2, which cannot be paid in one stroke, therefore, it is divided in ten equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The rest nine instalments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. 10. There will be no order as to costs. September 25, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 1513 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