Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20910 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6173 of 2023 Revisionist :- Smt. Pushpalata And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajat Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 30.8.2023 passed by Principal Judge, family court, Mathura in maintenance case no. 352 of 2019 (Smt. Pushpalata vs. Jaypal Singh) under section 127 Cr.P.C. whereby maintenance awarded to the applicant Smt. Pushpalata by order dated 21.4.2018 passed in maintenance case no. 365/2017 under section 125 Cr.P.C. to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- to the applicant no. 2 from the date of judgement has been enhanced to the extent of Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicants respectively. It is also directed in the impugned order that any maintenance or interim maintenance obtained by the revisionist in any other proceeding shall be liable to be adjusted towards maintenance award in this judgement. None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 even in revised call. No counter affidavit has been filed till date. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 was also not present on earlier date. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the revisionists are aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent of quantum of maintenance awarded in the impugned order as same is insufficient for necessary expenses of the applicants and to live of life upto standard to which she was accustomed to live when she was residing with respondent no. 2 at his place; a pay slip of the respondent no. 2 for the month of July, 2022 reveals his gross income as Rs. 46,154/- and said amount must have increased in course of time after lapse of two and half year but despite this fact learned court below has awarded maintenance to the applicant only Rs. 9,000/- per month in proceeding under section 127 Cr.P.C., which is less than 25% of salaried income of respondent no. 2. He is a police constable and government servant; a suit of divorce was filed by respondent no. 2 before the family court against the revisionist which was decreed and first appeal filed by the revisionist against the said decree of divorce was dismissed as not pressed by order of this court. He further submitted that the revisionist has filed a complaint case as case no. 4168 of 2017 (Smt. Pushpalata vs. Jaipal Singh) under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, which was decided on 14.7.2022 in which Rs. 50,000/- was granted to the applicant as a lump-sum payment and a sum of Rs. 6,500/- per month was awarded to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to her minor daughter as well as Rs. 1500/- per month as house rent to the applicant; the revisionist had filed criminal appeal before court of session against that judgement which was registered as criminal appeal no. 78 of 2022 and same was dismissed by the appellate court by order dated 21.3.2023 and judgement of learned Magistrate dated 14.7.2022 was affirmed, therefore, in view of the direction issued in the impugned order that any amount obtained by the applicant as maintenance or interim maintenance in any other proceeding of this case shall be liable to be adjusted, which would be payable to the revisionists in the sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month on the basis of impugned order as well as judgement and order passed in proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act. He further submitted that learned court below has rightly observed in para-14 of the judgement that any independent income of revisionist could not be proved by the opposite party. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and giving thoughtful consideration on material available on record it appears that if we read the impugned order whereby order passed in proceeding under Domestic Violence Act it is found that the respondent no. 2 is saddled with monetary liability of Rs. 12,500/- per month which will be liable to be paid by him to the applicant; apart from it, he has been directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as lump-sum payment in proceeding to the revisionist under the Domestic Violence Act as this is admitted position that decree of divorce has been granted on petition of respondent no. 2 to the revisionist. I find there is no occasion to enhance the amount of maintenance to the revisionist no. 1 Smt. Pushpalata. However, the amount of maintenance awarded to her minor son appears to be insufficient keeping in view monthly income of the respondent no. 2 and same is enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month subject to other condition imposed in the impugned order. The impugned order stands modified accordingly. The revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Dhirendra/ Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad