Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113577 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1915 of 2025 Revisionist :- Pramod Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shakil Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pratik J. Nagar Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 1, Meerut, District Meerut in Case No. 355 of 2020 (Smt. Aneeta Vs. Pramod Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Pallaupuram, District Meerut by which respondent no. 3, Aryansh Singh (minor) has been awarded of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. dated 21.07.2020 as maintenance and further prays to stay the further proceedings as well as stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor child of the revisionist. Opposite party no. 2 is living separate from him without sufficient reason with the minor child. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2 is also teacher in primary school and gets salary Rs. 75,000/- per month. He also submits that the revisionist is also teacher in primary school and gets salary Rs. 72,000/- per month. He also submits that the claim of maintenance in favour of wife the opposite party no. 2 has been rejected by the learned court since she is able to maintain herself but granted the amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of minor child as the amount of maintenance against the revisionist. The amount of maintenance so granted by the learned trial court is excessive, therefore, request to reduce the amount since he has other liabilities to discharge, like repayment of amount of loan. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contends that in this case the claim of maintenance in favour of wife has already been rejected since she is already in service and able to maintain herself but the minor child is to be maintained by both the persons husband and wife. The responsibility to maintain the minor child cannot be shifted only on one side but it lies on both sides. The opposite party no. 2 is bringing up the child and incurring the expenses on his maintenance. Now, the child is school going and expenses are also to be borne on his education and the expenses will grow further according to the standard of the education of the child. The learned trial court has considered all these facts and fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of child in view of status of the family and the expenses of maintenance and education. The amount so fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient but it is reasonable, therefore, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 27.03.2025, the status of the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 and the liabilities, the amount so fixed in favour of minor child in view of his maintenance and education cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate since the responsibility of maintenance of minor child rests on the shoulders of both the parties i.e. husband and wife. In this way, there appears no any ground to make interference in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 27.03.2025 but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad