HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2667 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Manoj Goswami, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj passed in Maintenance Case No. 360 of 2020 (Smt. Mamta Bala Sharma vs. Anil alias Ankur Sharma) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of application i.e. 04.08.2020. 3. Today on the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the revisionist comes up with a submission that neither he is challenging the merits/ correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment nor award of amount of maintenance made by the trial court under the said judgment. He only confines his prayer only to the extent that he may be permitted to pay the total amount of arrears of maintenance allowance, which is as on date, quantified approximately at Rs. 2,20,000/-, easy equal installments as to be fixed by this Court because it would be too harsh for the revisionist to pay the same in one stroke. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 have not opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the revisionist. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manoj Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Goswami, Manorama Goswami Anil @ Ankur Sharma .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is admitted fact that opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and it is pious duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife. However, in the opinion of the Court, there should be a balance between the total income and the responsibility of the husband. There is no dispute regarding the income of the revisionist as he is unemployed and has no regular source of income. Hence, there is no need to make any observation on this issue. There is also no documentary evidence regarding the income of opposite party no.2/ wife on record, who filed the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. There appears no illegality or impropriety being committed in the order passed by the learned trial court awarding monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, such order does not warrant any interference by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. However considering the fact that the revisionist is unemployed, he is unable to pay total arrears of maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application till date in one stroke. 6. Since the revisionist has not challenge the merits and amount of maintenance. In such circumstances, it is directed that the revisionist shall pay the total arrears amount as awarded by the trial court in favour of opposite party no.2 in 12 equal installments on the 7th day of each calendar month. The first installment shall commence from 7th October 2025. It is further directed that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 5000/- per month to opposite party no.2 regularly from the next month i.e. October 2025 as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment. 7. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of. September 18, 2025 C. MANI CRLR No. 2667 of 2024 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad