HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2082 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Case called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press the present revision. Hence this criminal revision is being decided after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA. 2. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Brijesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Misc. Case No. 390 of 2019 (Smt. Babli Vs. Durga Prasad Sagar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance allowance from the date of the application. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 12.12.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals, in the said marriage sufficient articles and cash were given as dowry but the her in-laws including her husband were not satisfied with the said dowry and demanded a Alto Car and also cash of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the family members of her in-laws committed marpeet upon her for non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. Thereafter, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home, and since then, she has been residing at her parental home as on date. In this regard, a First Information Report had also been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 12.07.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 54/2019 under Section 498-A, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Gaurabh Srivastava, Shantanu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ravindra Kumar Mishra Durga Prasad Sagar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District- Rampur. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the revisionist is quack and earns handsome amount, earlier he was working as compounder in a private hospital but due to lock down of Covid-19, he has been thrown out from his service. It is next submitted that the opposite party no.2 has no source of income, therefore, she is unable to maintain herself. The amount fixed by learned court below cannot be said to be in excessive or not proportionate to the income of the revisionist. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. Learned A.G.A. for State has also adopted same averments made by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by court below, it appears that admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. So far as the separate living of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the trial court while deciding the issue no. 5 has recorded its categorically finding that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient reason as she has been tortured by her in-laws including her husband due to additional demand of dowry. It appears from the impugned judgment that the revisionist is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. The finding recorded by the trial court is findings of fact and this Court being a revisional court, may not re-appreciate the evidence to return its own finding unless the finding recorded by the court is perverse and against the facts and law. So far as the income opposite party no.2 is concerned, the trial court has also recorded the income of the opposite party no.2 is unable to maintain herself, which transpires from the page no.8 of the impugned judgment. However, it is on record that opposite party no.2 is working as an Assistant in Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Chamraua on a daily-wage basis and earns only Rs. 2,250/- per month, which is not a substantial amount, she required more financial assistance from the side of the revisionist. 7. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, however, it is on record that the revisionist is a quack and earlier he was working as compunder in a private hospital but due to lock down of Covid-19, he has been thrown out from his service, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, even the revisionist is assumed as labourer, he can earn Rs.600/- per day, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per month and keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury CRLR No. 2082 of 2024 2 Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband comes Rs. 4500/-. 8. The revisionist/husband is an able-bodied person and, therefore, he cannot shirk from his pious liability to maintain his wife and the maintenance awarded by the court below of Rs. 4000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be excessive, which is already on lower side, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed. September 18, 2025 Akbar CRLR No. 2082 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad