HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1871 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in Court today be kept on record. 2 Heard Shri S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Mazhar Ullah, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Shri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record. 3. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 171 of 2021 (Smt. Najma Parveen Vs. Mohd. Umar) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Shahbad, District- Rampur, by which the opposite party no.2 has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist from the date of application. 4. Leaned counsel for the revisionist mainly argued that the opposite party no.2 is running a retail and wholesale business of New Brand Jeans. He is the owner of the Jeans factory. The said factory is running in the name and style of MFRS & Whole seller Cotton and Jeans Men's Wear. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that this fact was also raised before the trial court and documents were also filed thereof bringing on record such facts that the opposite party no.2 is the proprietor of the said factory M.I. Enterprises and partner of the New Brand Jeans Company, mentioned vide paper No. 15-Kha/52 Ta 15-Kha/56, situated at 16/666, Ganesh Gali Tank Road, Karol bagh, New Delhi but on a very technical Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : S.M. Iqbal Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mazhar Ullah, Seema Wahid Smt. Najma Perveen .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) approach the learned trial court has considered the opposite party no.2 as labour and assessed his income to be Rs.16,000/- which is against the fact available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the amount awarded by the trial court is so meagre and therefore, it deserves to be enhanced. Except this no other point has been raised on behalf of the revisionist. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record. In paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit, he admitted that the G.S.T. bill is being paid in the name of M.I. Enterprises by the opposite party no.2, himself. However, during the course of argument, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has fairly conceded that New Brand Jeans is in the partnership of two brothers, out of which, one is the opposite party no.2. 7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and of learned AGA and perused the judgment and order dated 19.01.2024, it is admitted that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2. It is also admitted that the opposite party no.2 is not only manufacturer of Jeans but also he runs retail and wholesale business in the partnership of his brother in New Brand Jeans, situated at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 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, observed that same amount of maintenance should be granted to the wife with a view to provide the same status of living in the society as of her husband. 8. Since keeping in view the status of the opposite party no.2, the amount awarded by the trial court is not commensurate with his income, although, there is no actual and exact figure of the income of the opposite party no.2 has been shown before this Court but during the course of argument leaned counsel for the parties agreed that if the amount be increased to the tune of Rs.10,000/- from Rs.4,000/-, it would be better to serve the ends of justice. Since this Court is also of the view that a person who runs the business of manufacturing jeans as well as retail and wholesale business, he can easily CRLR No. 1871 of 2024 2 earns Rs.40,000/- per month and according to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra), the 25% of the net salary/income of the husband can be fixed as maintenance to the wife, which comes to Rs.10,000/-. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month, which will be payable from the date of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 prays that after enhancement of the amount of maintenance the arrears will also be accumulated automatically, hence, it is divided into ten equal instalments. The first instalment will fall due on 15th of November, 2025. The rest nine instalments shall be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. 11. With the above observations, the instant criminal revision is disposed of. September 23, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 1871 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad