HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1751 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. None present for opposite party no.2, whereas learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 are present. 3. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Kanpur Nagar, in Maintenance Case No. 1326 of 2021 (Smt. Kanchan Kalse and another Vs. Ashwani Kumar) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the opposite party no.2 has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist no.1-Smt. Kanchan Kalse and Rs.3000/- per month to the revisionist no.2-Master Laukik, from the date of the order. 4. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the opposite party no.2 is Software Engineer and his admitted income is Rs.42,500/- per month but the amount awarded by the trial court has been calculated on the basis of his income of Rs.20,000/-, which is not correct in the eyes of law and the amount should have been fixed on his admitted income as per the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State- opposite party no.1 opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionists and stated that the judgment of the trial court is just and proper, which does not require interference by this Court. 6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, argument Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Saurabh Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt Kanchan Kalse And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) advanced on behalf of the parties and of learned AGA and perused the judgment and orders of the trial court, it is admitted that the revisionist no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist no.2 is the minor son of the opposite party no.2. At page-3 of the judgment, it also reflects that the admitted income of the opposite party no.2 is Rs.42,500/- but the trial court while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. has not considered the admitted income of the opposite party no.2. In 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, the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband, which comes to Rs.10,625/-in round figure Rs.10,500/-, hence the amount should have been awarded as Rs.10,500/-, therefore, the amount awarded by the trial court is not in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (supra). 7. In view of above, the amount awarded by the trial court deserves to be modified to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.8,000/-per month is enhanced to Rs.10,500/- per month, out of which, Rs.6,000/- shall be paid to the revisionist no.1-Smt. Kanchan Kalse and Rs.4500/-to the revisionist no.2-Master Laukik, from the date of order. 8. With the above observations/directions, the instant criminal revision is partly allowed. September 24, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 1751 of 2024 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad