Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137008 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2346 of 2025 Revisionist :- Raju Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Kumar Rai,Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Vakalatnama filed today in Court by Sri Abhishek Mishra, on behalf of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge 3rd, Family Court, Jaunpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 808 of 2022 (Chandrakala Vs. Raju Ram) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist who is living apart from him without any sufficient cause. He further submits that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed with false allegations regarding harassment and demand of dowry. There is no material on record to show that any maltreatment was done with her either by the husband or other members of his family even though the learned trial court has allowed the application by order dated 07.03.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of wife. He also submits that the revisionist is an unemployed person and have no any source of income, therefore, the amount so fixed by the learned trial court is excessive and beyond his paying capacity. Thus, the order passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside and allow the present revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the revisionist maltreated the the opposite party no. 2 when she was in his house, as a result she was compelled to live separate from him and now she is living in her maika. She was also subjected to misbehave by other members of the family of the revisionist which she tolerated for the purpose of saving her relation with the revisionist. He also contends that there is business of clothes conducted by the revisionist and have sufficient income. On the other hand, the opposite party no. 2 has no any source of income and the learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of wife that cannot be said to be sufficient and beyond paying capacity of the revisionist/husband. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 07.03.2025, it appears that the opposite party no.2 is wedded wife of the revisionist living apart from him due to his neglect. She made several allegations against the revisionist and other members of his family to show cause for her living apart from him. There is no material on record to show that she is working lady or makes any income. The revisionist being able bodied person and being husband is under legal obligation to maintain his wife. The amount as fixed by the learned trial court for maintenance of wife that is Rs. 3,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or beyond his paying capacity. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 07.03.2025 but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad