HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2458 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Mrityunjay Datta Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi, in Maintenance Case No. 289 of 2017 (Pinki Vishwakarma and another Vs. Arun Kumar Vishwakarma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station & District Bhadohi, whereby the trial court has awarded Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the opposite parties no.2 and 3, out of which Rs.4,000/- to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.4,000/- to the opposite party no.3, from the date of application. 3. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has no source of regular income, he is doing the work of labour in a shop of fabrication, sometimes he gets work and sometimes, he remains out of work, therefore, his monthly earning is not fixed, it depends on the days of his working, only, hence the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is not commensurate with the earning of the revisionist and except this no other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that from the wedlock of revisionist and the opposite party no.2, two sons were born, one is living with the revisionist and the other is living with the opposite party no.2, who has been arrayed as opposite party no.3 in the instant criminal revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that apart from his Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mrityunjay Datta Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Hari Shanker, Sunil Kumar Singh Arun Kumar Vishwakarma .....Revisionist(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) minor son, his old age mother is also living with him. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 have opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionists and stated that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is perfectly just and proper and the same does not call for interference by this Hon'ble Court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court dated 02.04.2024, it appears that the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.3 is their son. However, there is no strong and cogent evidence on record to show the income of the revisionist but as admitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist during the course of argument that he is doing the work of labour in a fabrication shop, if his income is to be assumed Rs.8,00/- per day, which comes to Rs.24,000/- per month and as per the observation of 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.6,000/-. The Apex Court further observed that the maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. 7. It is also pertinent to mention here that one minor is living with the revisionist, apart from this he has responsibility to take care of his old aged mother. In case, it is assumed that the monthly income of the revisionist is Rs.24,000/- and as per the guidelines of the Apex Court mentioned above, its 25% comes to Rs.6,000/- per month, which is commensurate to the income of the revisionist. Therefore, the maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month awarded by the trial court is reduced to Rs.6,000/- per month, out of which Rs.3,000/- per month shall be paid to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.3,000/- per month to the revisionist no.3 (till he attains the age of majority) from the date of application. The amount of arrears shall also be calculated as per Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of the application. CRLR No. 2458 of 2024 2 8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of application, in the place of Rs. 8,000/-. 9. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance is concerned, it may be divided into 10 equal monthly installments payable with the current amount of maintenance per month. September 12, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 2458 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad