Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146226 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2276 of 2024 Revisionist :- Abhishek Singh Gautam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Tarun Jha Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dharmendra Kumar,G.A.,Ram Surat Patel Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai. By the said order dated 06.02.2024, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has fixed the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid by the revisionist to opposite party no.2. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that the revisionist belongs to a poor family and he is earning barely Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, while working in a telecom shop, that is to say, the Distribution Dealership of a Telecom Company. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further stated that opposite party no.2 is allegedly having some extra marital relationship with a third person and because of the said relationship, she is not liked by the revisionist and for that reason, the revisionist has also filed a case under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce from opposite party no.2 on certain grounds as stated in the said application. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also stated that the revisionist has made his best efforts to reconcile with opposite party no.2 but all efforts went in vain. The ground of alleged extra marital relationship of opposite party no.2 and her bad habits were also averred in the objection filed by the revisionist before the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai, but the said ground was not considered by the the learned Principal Judge, Family Court while passing the order of maintenance and therefore, the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has stated that the said marriage culminated pursuant to some love affairs between the revisionist and opposite party no.2, however the circumstances went in a manner that both started disliking each other and finally the husband preferred to file a petition seeking divorce from opposite party no.2. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has further stated that the habits, those have been referred to by the revisionist, similar nature's habits were that of the revisionist and therefore, opposite party no.2 tried her best to mend the ways of the revisionist, but to no avail. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has also stated that the revisionist himself has admitted the fact that his income is Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and there are no children born out of the said wedlock and therefore, the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, is on minimum side and needs to be enhanced, but no such prayer has been made by opposite party no.2 to enhance the amount of maintenance in separate appropriate proceedings. 5. It is also an admitted fact from both the sides that the revisionist has initiated a separate proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences committed under Section 498-A IPC and allied Secions, but no final order has been passed on the said application filed by the revisionist under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court comes to the conclusion that, so far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, it is admitted by the revisionist that it varies from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Opposite party no.2 has stated in the application before the Principal Judge, Family Court that the income of the revisionist is about Rs.40,000/- per month, besides having income from his agricultural land and there is also a house of the revisionist in District Datiya, State of Madhya Pradesh, hence, a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, as maintenance appears to be just and appropriate to carry out her (opposite party no.2) livelihood. 7. From the perusal of the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024, it reveals that the said impugned order has been passed by due consideration of facts, evidence on record and by taking into consideration the income of the revisionist and therefore, calls for no interference and hence, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. The present revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Salim Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad