Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133031 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2395 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shikhar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party and learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 10.4.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur, in Case No.849 of 2023 (Smt. Sarika Devi and another Vs. Vijay Kumar Verma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C./144 of B.N.S.S., Police Station Asothar, District Fatehpur, and further prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party no.3 is minor daughter, who is living with her. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 was married to him and out of wedlock opposite party no.3 was born. Later on, she left her matrimonial home and started living in her Maika at Fatehpur. He further submits that she filed a complaint against the revisionist with false allegations, that was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It shows that there was no any cruelty or harassment with opposite party no.2 either by the revisionist or any member of his family. She filed an application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. with an application for interim maintenance, which was decided by the learned trial court by order dated 10.4.2025 fixing the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of minor daughter from the date of application to the date of order, and from the date of order Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.6,000/- per month in favour of minor daughter, total Rs.16,000/- per month. He also submits that learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance on the basis of monthly salary Rs.70,418/-, whereas his monthly salary is Rs.39,537/-, as per salary slip for the month of March, 2025. The learned trial court has taken into consideration the salary slip for the month of May, 2024 in which he received the salary Rs.75,571/- and after deduction Rs.70,418/-. In that month Rs.28,687/- was also received as child education allowance and this allowance is not available to the revisionist in every month but it is for one time in a year. He also submits that the amount so fixed by learned trial court is excessive and disproportionate to the monthly income of the revisionist i.e. Rs.39,537/-. Learned counsel for the revisionist, therefore, requests to set aside the order dated 10.4.2025 and allow the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the amount of maintenance to the wife may be to the extent of 25% of net salary of the husband, as per observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. In this way, Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of wife cannot be said to be excessive, likewise Rs.6,000/- per month for the minor child for her maintenance as well as expenses on her education can also not be said to be more than sufficient. He also contends that learned trial court has already granted concession in favour of revisionist by fixing the amount just half from the date of application to the date of order. 5. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, order passed by the learned trial court and also takening into consideration the net salary received by the revisionist as per Pay Slip for the month of March, 2025 i.e. Rs.39,537/-, the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of wife is about to 25% of the net salary and for the minor child Rs.6,000/- per month. In view of the concession granted by learned trial court in favour of the revisionist from the date of application to the date of order, this amount appears to be appropriate, therefore, the order passed by learned trial court dated 10.4.2025 does not require any interference, but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad