HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2494 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. List revised. 2. Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist is present. 3. No one is present for opposite party no.2 while State is represented through learned AGA. 4. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist for enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 20th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur, Case No. 98 of 2017 (Sapna vs. Devendra Kumar), under Section 125/127 Cr.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur, whereby the Principal Judge has allowed the application made by revisionist under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to his wife i.e. revisionist as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2. She filed an application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed and opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs. 4500/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist. Aggrieved with the same, opposite party no.2 approached this Court whereby the amount of maintenance was reduced to Rs. 3500/- per month in place of Rs.4500/- per month. Thereafter, on 28.07.2017 an application U/s 127 Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist before the trial court which was allowed and opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs. 6000/- per month as enhanced maintenance amount to the revisionist. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Sapna .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. The sole argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that opposite party no.2 has filed his affidavit regarding sureties and liabilities before the trial court in the light of judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 12, in which he admitted his income of Rs. 45320/- and after deducting necessary deductions he receives Rs. 32000/- per month. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Supras) the revisionist is entitled to get 25% of the gross income of the husband and the amount awarded by the trial court is not incommensurate with the income of the husband and meagre amount has been awarded which requires interference of this Court. 7. Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer made by the revisionist contending that it has not been dispute that the opposite party no.2 is a class- IV employee in Swami Shukdevanand Post Graduate College, Mumukshu Ashram of Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, and his income is Rs. 32000/- per month after necessary deductions. 8. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the argument made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record including the impugned order, it is admitted fact that there is no dispute that the revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2 and this fact also not disputed that opposite party no.2 is a government employee who earn Rs.32000/- per month. In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the total income of the husband. Now in view of the current inflation and expenses of livelihood the amount of maintenance which have been awarded by the trial court is not incommensurate with the income of the husband and not more than the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Supras). 9. Since in the opinion of this Court, the maintenance allowance as has been awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionist, normally this Court would have remanded the instant matter to the trial court for deciding afresh, but looking to the huge pendency before the trial court and also for saving the precious time of the trial court, this Court is proceeding to modify the impugned judgment. Hence in view of this Court, as per the law laid down by Apex Court, its 25% of income of opposite party no.2 (Rs. 32000/-) CRLR No. 2494 of 2024 2 comes to Rs. 8000 and the impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2024 deserves to be modified by enhancing the amount of maintenance to Rs. 8000/- per month in place of Rs. 6000/- per month which is just, reasonable and realistic and the revision is accordingly, allowed. Now the opposite party no.2 shall pay Rs. 8000/- per month to the revisionist from the date of this order. 10. The amount received, if any, by the opposite party no.2 as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment. September 15, 2025 C. MANI CRLR No. 2494 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad