HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2128 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri K.K. Rao, learned counsel for the revisionists, and learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1. 2. Despite service of notice upon opposite party no.2, no one is present. 3. The instant criminal revision has been filed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court no.1, Bulandshahr in Criminal Case No. 306 of 2021 (Smt. Sarvesh and two Ors vs. Bhupendra Kumar) and for enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-1, Bulandshahr, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby trial court while rejecting the application for maintenance in favour of revisionist no.1 and directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.3000/- per month each as maintenance allowance to the revisionist nos.2 & 3 (minor daughters) from the date of filing of application. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the marriage of revisionist no.1 with opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 27.11.2015 and after some time she was being tortured by her in-laws including her husband and they demanded Rs.1.5 lac and a four wheeler car as an additional dowry. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that her brother-in-law (devar) and nandoi have attempted to commit rape while doing indecent behaviour with her and that is why she compelled to live separately along with her minor daughters from the opposite party no.2 but this fact was not considered by the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that opposite party no.2 is working as a contractor who construct roads and buildings, and has Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : K.K.Rao, Neha Pandey, Piyush Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt Sarvesh And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) sufficient means of income, therefore, the maintenance amount as has been awarded by the trial court is very meager, hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court directed to opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.3000/- per month each to revisionist nos.2 & 3 as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application, deserves to be modified. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA and perused the record including the impugned judgment, it transpires that it is admitted fact that the revisionist no.1 is legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2. So far as separate living is concerned, the learned trial court has categorically comes to the findings while deciding issue nos. 2 & 3 at page- 12 of the impugned judgment, for the purpose of separate living from the opposite party no.2, she levelled serious allegations upon her brother- in-law (devar and nandoi) for committing office of rape. The learned trial court also mentioned in the judgment that opposite party no.2 has filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights which shows that the opposite party no.2 still wants to take revisionists back but the revisionist no.1 is admitted in her statement that even if the opposite party no.2 wanted to keep her and her daughters with him but she does not willing to go with him. Thus, the finding recorded by the trial court regarding separate living without any sufficient reason is cannot said to be incorrect as per the present facts and circumstances of the case. 7. So far as the income of opposite party no.2 is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that opposite party no.2 has any regular source of income, however, it was alleged that he is a big contractor who constructed roads and buildings and it was not impossible for the revisionist no.1 to show some documents regarding the nature of work and source of income of opposite party no.2 who indulge in the business of construction. While the opposite party no.2 in his reply mentioned that no licence has been issued in his favour as a contractor. Learned counsel for the revisionists did not claim that opposite party no.2 has any physical deformity and as per the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another,(2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, it is observed that the husband is able bodied persons and it is the pious duty of the husband to maintain her wife and children. However there is nothing on record to fix the income of opposite party no.2 nor before this Court and in such circumstances even if the opposite party no.2 is considered as labour, he can easily earn Rs.600/- CRLR No. 2128 of 2024 2 per day, accordingly, he will earn 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 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband, which comes to Rs.4,500/- per month. The trial court has awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month each to revisionist nos. 2 & 3, in total Rs.6,000/- per month, which is already in upper side, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed. September 17, 2025 C. MANI CRLR No. 2128 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad