+Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77997 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2200 of 2025 Revisionist :- Pawan Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Narendra Deo Upadhyay,Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra in Case No. 541 of 2019 (Seeta Devi Vs. Pawan Patel), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party nos 2 is wife of the revisionist, who is living without any sufficient cause separate from him. The learned Trial Court has fixed the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the wife from the date of order and Rs. 1,000/- from the date of application to the date of order. It is further submitted that there is no any proved income of the husband / revisionist and learned Court has assessed the income about Rs. 7,000/- per month as disclosed by the revisionist himself but the amount so fixed is excessive and disproportionate to the income of the revisionist. He also submits that there are two daughters those are living with the revisionist from the year 2019 and the opposite party no. 2 left her Sasural without any cause, therefore, request to set aside the order dated 20.03.2025 and reduce the amount. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and the order passed by learned Trial Court dated 20.03.2025, it appears that due to neglect on the part of the revisionist the wife / opposite party no. 2 is living separate from him from the year 2019. The opposite party no. 2 has stated before the learned Trial Court that there was allegation against her to make an assault on the mother of the revisionist and an N.C.R. was also lodged against her by them. They used to quarrel with her that was the reason she is living separate from them. She also told that her husband / revisionist works as driver and makes earning. From the statement of wife it appears that she is living separate from the revisionist as he and his mother lodged a case against her with allegations to make assault. The revisionist has not paid any amount to the wife except the amount of interim maintenance, which was directed by the learned Trial Court. The revisionist is able bodied person and under obligation to maintain his wife who is living separate from him with sufficient cause. The amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the wife i.e. Rs. 100/- per day can not be said to be excessive or disproportionate. Likewise, the amount of maintenance Rs. 1,000/- from the date of application to the date of order can also not be said to be excessive. In this way, the order passed by learned Trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court. So far as the arrears of maintenance from the date of application to the date of order are concerned, that amount shall be paid by the revisionist in 12 equal installments with a current amount of maintenance. The amount of maintenance already paid by the revisionist shall be subject to adjustment in the amount due against him. Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 SK Srivastava Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad