HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1864 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the revisionist, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to quash-modify the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj, in Maintenance Case No. 938 of 2024 (Smt. Vaishali Srivastava and another Versus Saurabh Kumar) awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 to be paid by revisionist in proceeding under Section 144 (Ka) and 144 (Ga) B.N.S.S. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party no.3 is minor son of the revisionist. Marriage was performed in the year 2009 and on account some dispute, the opposite party no.2 started misbehaving to the revisionist and also started living separate from him from the year 2023. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. with an application for interim maintenance, which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 17.02.2025, fixing Rs. 50,000/- per month in favour of minor son and rejected the claim of wife, as she is in service and get Rs. 90,870/- per month. He also submitted that the revisionist is working as Drawing and Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ramesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., S.K. Singh Vashisht Saurabh Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Surveying Instructor in Allahabad University and get Rs. 1,10,565/- per month, out of which Rs. 50,000/- awarded per month in favour of minor child, is excessive and disproportionate. The liability of maintenance of the child is to be fastened on both husband and wife where both of them are working and getting handsome salary. Learned trial court did not consider this fact, but fastened the entire liability on the shoulder of the revisionist that cannot be said to be lawful. The opposite party no.3-minor child, is physically and mentally disabled, aged about 14-15 years and he needs special care and treatment and when he was living with him, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month was spent on his maintenance as expenses of medical and other expenses, therefore, the amount of maintenance and treatment cannot be more than that. He further submitted that opposite party nos.2 has filed medical bills, those cannot be said to be genuine but for the purpose to extract money from the revisionist, therefore, request to reduce the amount as fixed by the learned trial court in favour of minor child. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that revisionist and opposite party no.2 are husband and wife and admittedly both are in service and getting salary as aforesaid. The opposite party no.3 is minor child, who is physically and mentally disabled and requires special treatment and care. Since the opposite party no.2 is living apart from her husband due to his neglect and she takes care of the child when she is at her work place, it requires to engage an attendant for special treatment and care of the child and in this regard Rs. 15,000 to 20,000/- per month are spent. In addition to this, expenses on medicines and treatment and on his education, are also required, therefore, the amount fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. Learned trial court has fixed the amount after considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, request not to reduce the amount. 6. 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 the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned trial court, it appears that revisionist and opposite party nos. 2 are husband and wife and marriage was performed in the year 2009 and they lived together till the year 2023 and out of wed-lock, the opposite party no.3 was born who is CRLR No. 1864 of 2025 2 physically and mentally disabled and needs special care and treatment. From the perusal of medical bills, it appears that certain amount is spent on his special care and treatment, but it cannot be fixed in figures due to variation in treatment cost. Learned counsel for the revisionist admitted that at about Rs. 20,000/- were spent on his treatment by the revisionist when the child was living with him, in this way, this amount cannot be disputed. Since the opposite party no.2 is also a teacher in a school and she is also to attend her school. In the meantime, services of attendant are required for which there is need of Rs. 15,000 to 20,000/-. In addition to this there are some extra expenses for special education of the child. 7. After taking into account the expenses on the maintenance of child, the liability of Rs. 35,000/- is fastened against the revisionist and remaining expenses shall be borne by the opposite party no.2 herself. This amount is payable by the revisionist month to month from the date of application. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 17.02.2025 is modified and present criminal revision is partly allowed. September 23, 2025 T.S. CRLR No. 1864 of 2025 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad