Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141972 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3253 of 2025 Revisionist :- Mukesh Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Mishra,Nagendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 19.4.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Maintenance Case No.129/2023 CNR No. UPMB020004622023 (Smt. Mohita Upadhyay Vs. Mukesh Tiwari) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kulpahad, District Mahoba. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist, who is living apart from him without any sufficient reason. He further submits that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7.6.2022 and the wife went to her Maika on 20.6.2022. He further submits that she was not satisfied with the marriage and she stated that her marriage was solemnized under pressure of her father. She did also not let the revisionist establish physical relations. She herself made complaint against the husband and other family members and filed present application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with false allegations regarding torture and harassment on part of the revisionist and other members of his family. Learned trial court has decided issue no.1 in this regard without appreciating the evidence on record in proper manner. He further submits that the amount Rs.20,000/- as fixed by the learned trial court for maintenance in favour of wife is more than 25% of his net salary, therefore, it be reduced and allow the revision. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. 5. On considering the facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that in this case admittedly the opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist, whose marriage was performed on 7.6.2022. On 20.6.2022 she was sent to her Maika by snatching jewellery, clothes and other items belonging to the wife/opposite party no.2. When she came to her Maika, the revisionist did not go to take her from Maika. During the course of trial the opposite party no.2 has clearly stated about the misbehave on part of the brother of the revisionist. There is no any other material on record to show that she was in affair with some other person and marriage was performed against her will under pressure of her parents. She also stated that physical relations were established between both of them, therefore, it cannot be said that such relations have not been established and no any such evidence can be expected in this regard. The mother of opposite party no.2 also stated clearly in her cross-examination that she was ready to see off her daughter but she is living in her Maika and her husband is not taking her. This is also relevant to note that the revisionist has stated that he went to take the wife in her Maika with her mother and younger brother but during the course of cross-examination he admitted the fact that the wife went to Chitrakoot Mahila Thana where he was called and was told by Sub-Inspector to take the wife with him but he asked for time for good Omen but did not go to take the wife. He again admitted the fact that wife Mohita came to his house for the purpose of living but he did not open the Gate and in case she is ready to come, he will not keep her. On account of this reason, the opposite party no.2/wife is living apart from the husband/revisionist. 6. So far as the capability of wife to maintain herself is concerned, there is no any other material on record to show that she is earning Rs.24,000/- per month from Coaching Classes. Though she is BTC trained but on the basis of BTC Training she cannot be said to be making an income. On the other hand, the revisionist is teacher and he stated in his chief examination that after deduction he gets Rs.68,000/- per month as salary but during his cross-examination he admitted that his salary is Rs.80,000 - 90,000/- per month. In this way, after essential deductions supposed to be Rs.10,000/- from his gross salary Rs.90,000/-, Rs.20,000/- per month cannot be said to be beyond the limit of 25% of his net income. Learned trial court has considered all these facts in well manner and passed the order in question. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned court, therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court. 7. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance is concerned, it will be divided into 24 equal instalments payable month to month with the current amount of maintenance. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad