HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1679 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Harendra Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Maintenance. Case No.2101079 of 2017 (Neeraj Vs. Prabhakar Rai), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance allowance from the date of the application. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is an unemployed and has no source of income, however, the trial court has not considered this fact. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is living separately without any sufficient reason while the revisionist wants to live with her and trial court allowing the application of the opposite party no.2 arbitrarily without appreciating facts in right perspective. . 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that considering the current inflation, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws on account of additional demand of dowry in the form of an Alto car, and she was also physically assaulted on several occasions. In this regard, an FIR has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist and his family Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mohit Singh, Ravi Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Harendra Yadav Prabhakar Rai .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) members. 5. Learned A.G.A. for State has also adopted same averments made by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by court below, it appears that admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. So far as the separate living of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, it appears from the impugned judgment that the revisionist is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist as the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist as reflected from the page no.2 of the impugned judgment. The finding recorded by the trial court is findings of fact and this Court being a revisional court, may not re-appreciate the evidence to return its own finding unless the finding recorded by the court is perverse and against the facts and law. So far as the income opposite party no.2/wife is concerned, it reflects from the page no.11 of the impugned judgment that the opposite party no. 2 has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself. 7. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, however, there is nothing on record to show the income of the revisionist but learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that revisionist is an Engineer and earns Rs 50,000/- per month, but there is nothing on record to any documents to show the income of the revisionist. The trial court has considered the revisionist as labourer which reflects as page no. 11 of the impugned judgment. Since the revisionist has not claimed any physical deformity, this Court presumes that the revisionist/husband is an able-bodied person and, therefore, he cannot shirk from his pious liability to maintain his wife. 8. In facts and circumstances of the case, even the revisionist is assumed as labourer, he can earn Rs.600/- per day, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per month and keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband which comes Rs. 4500/-. 9. The maintenance awarded by the court below of Rs. 4000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be excessive, which is already on CRLR No. 1679 of 2024 2 lower side, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed October 10, 2025 Akbar CRLR No. 1679 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad