Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146374 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1992 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sarita Saraswat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jai Raj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sujan Singh Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra. By the said order dated 13.02.2024, a sum of Rs. 2,500/- has been fixed as maintenance in respect of the revisionist. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra is in accordance with law, but the amount of maintenance has been fixed on lower side, which is bare minimum and is insufficient for carrying out the livelihood for the revisionist and it is very difficult to even carry out the day to day requirement of food and necessity for survival. He has further submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra while passing the order on amount of interim maintenance upheld the case of revisionist, that she is liable to get the relief of maintenance. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra while deciding the amount of maintenance has taken into consideration that the revisionist is residing in the village at dwelling house, whereas opposite party no. 2 resides in the agriculture field, from where he earns his livelihood by doing agricultural work on his own earning and other subsidiary farming. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that opposite party no. 2 is a poor man and is having barely less then two bigha agriculture land and no other source of income. He has further submitted that the revisionist is running a beauty parlor at her residence in the village and she is earning sufficient income for her livelihood and needs no maintenance at all. However, the said running of beauty parlor is being denied by the learned counsel for the revisionist, and as such, no evidence in respect of existing beauty parlor has been adduced before the trial court. 5. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra appears to be in accordance with law. However, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- awarded by the Principal Judge, Family Court, prima facie appears to be bare minimum, as sum of Rs. 2,500/- is not sufficient to carry out day to day requirement of necessity of food, clothes and etc. Moreover, the revisionist is also having two sons of 14 and 13 years respectively and they are college going children and they also need financial requirement in respect of studies and day to day affairs. 6. Looking into the entire facts and circumstances, the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, it appears to be bare minimum, and it is very difficult to even carry out the day to day requirement of food and necessity for survival and the amount is liable to be increased at the rate of Rs. 3,500/-. Hence, enhanced to Rs. 3,500/-. 7. The present criminal revision stands disposed of as stated above. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad