Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128960 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2750 of 2025 Revisionist :- Smt. Ajrabano Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision by modifying the judgment and order dated 26.03.2025 and enhance the maintenance allowance awarded by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah in Maintenance Case No.168 of 2022 (Smt. Ajrabano vs. Mohd. Shabbir Hussain Barkati) (CNR No.UPEW020003282022) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah whereby the learned trial court has awarded the maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to the revisionist from the date of application i.e. 30.10.2023. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is husband of the revisionist. Due to his neglect she is living apart from him and filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the learned trial court by order dated 26.03.2025 fixing the amount of Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance in favour of wife from the date of application. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 operates a grocery shop. He has 1/4th share in plastic pipe factory at home and also has 1/8th share in plastic factory with his brother-in-law. In this way, he makes handsome income even though the learned trial court fixed the amount of Rs.4000/- per month ignoring the aforesaid income of the husband, therefore, request to increase the amount. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 26.03.2025, it appears that opposite party no.2 is husband of the revisionist. The revisionist stated about the operation of grocery shop but there is nothing on record to support such statement that he operates grocery shop or he has 1/4 share in plastic pipe factory at his home or has 1/8th share in plastic pipe factory in partnership with his brother-in-law. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of Rs.4000/- per month in favour of wife/revisionist which cannot be said to be less than sufficient or disproportionate to the income of the husband whereas his income is not proved and there is nothing on record to show his regular income. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad