Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48792 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2492 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt Lalita Kumari @ Rubi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Balbir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Geetam Singh Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists, who is wife of the opposite party no.2 and revisionist no.2 is minor son against the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 1431 of 2019, under Section 125 Cr. P.C. (Smt Lalita Kumari @ Rubi Vs. Ravindra Kumar) for increasing the amount of maintenance which was fixed by the learned trial court to Rs. 5000/- to the wife and Rs. 2000/- to minor son. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party no.2 is B.Tech degree holder and getting Rs. 36,000/- per month by working as Computer Operator in the office of District Panchayat Raj on contractual basis and also running a Dhaba from where he earns Rs. 30,000/- per month. The learned trial court has decided the amount as aforesaid for maintenance, which is too meager whereas it must be not less than 25% of the total income of the husband. The income of the opposite party no.2 and status of the wife has also not been considered by the learned trial court while awarding the maintenance amount, therefore, this order cannot be said to be lawful and amount of maintenance is liable to be increased. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and contended that opposite party no.2 was working on contractal basis in computer section in the office of District Panchayat Raj and now he has left the job and is unemployed. There is no any Dhaba said to be run by the opposite party no.2. He is not in a position to make the payment of amount as determined by the learned trial court as maintenance. He has his old father and mother and out of his income, he spends more part of the amount in their treatment, as such he is not in a position to make the payment of the amount as maintenance. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record, order passed by the learned trial court on 04.03.2024, it appears that the learned trial court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the income of the opposite party no.2. As per salary slip, the opposite party no.2 was getting Rs.20,000/- per month as salary from the office of District Panchayat Raj. He was working on contractual basis in computer section and there is no any other material on record to show that Dhaba is being run by the opposite party no.2. There is no any other source of income, in this way the learned trial court has determined the amount in favour of the wife to Rs. 5000/- i.e. 25% of the total amount of income and Rs. 2000/- per month to the revisionist no.2, the minor son, total amount Rs. 7000/- This amount cannot be said to be improper to the income of the husband and cannot be increased. In view of the above, there appears no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court. The revision is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad