Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72277 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2050 of 2025 Revisionist :- Neelesh Nigam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ved Mani Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard leaned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision, set aside the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.03, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No.1993/2019 (CIS NO.100/2020) u/s 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Sita Saxena vs. Nilesh Nigam). It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist who is living separate from him without any reasonable excuse. Further submitted that the revisionist was working in Pancham Diagnostic Centre, Gandhi Nagar, Barielly but from the year 2021 he is not working anywhere because he has an old mother to take care that is the reason he is unable to work and earn income. Learned court concerned has not considered all these facts while fixing the amount Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance from the date of order though from the date of application Rs.2500/- per month, therefore, requests to reduce the amount from Rs.5000/- per month to Rs.2500/- per month and set aside the order passed by the learned trial court. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the revisionist is able bodied person and as per his admission he was working in Pancham Diagnostic Centre, Gandhi Nagar, Barielly and making income prior to the year 2021 which shows that even today he is able to work as such and earn income. Due to neglect the wife is living apart from the year 2019 and nothing is being given by him to the opposite party no.2 which also shows that she is living there as a result of neglect on the part of the husband. It is also contended that the mother of revisionist is receiving pension, therefore, her financial burden is also not on the revisionist/husband. In this way, Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife cannot be said to be excessive whereas she is living in Bareilly and is well educated. 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 passed by learned trial court, it appears that the revisionist is able bodied person and the wife is living separate from him due his neglect from the year 2019 and he had not provided any expenditure to her. The legal obligation to maintain the wife rests on the husband and the amount of Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance of wife cannot be said to be excessive in the city like Bareilly. The learned trial court has already granted concession in his favour by fixing the amount Rs.2500/- from the date of application to the date of order. In this way, there appears no any ground to reduce the amount fixed in favour of wife from the date of order but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad