Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112036 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2770 of 2025 Revisionist :- Smt. Nagina Alias Neha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahima Maurya Kushwaha,Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha 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 a prayer to allow the present revision and enhance the maintenance amount awarded to the revisionist under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Maintenance Case No. 1004 of 2021 (Smt. Nagina @ Neha Vs. Saurabh Saraswat) to a just and reasonable sum as per her needs and the opposite party's means. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case revisionist is wife of the opposite party no. 2 who is living separate from him due to his neglect and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the learned court fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 13,000/- per month in favour of wife that is insufficient and disproportionate to the income of the husband who is teacher in government school and gets gross salary Rs. 66,019/- but in the affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2 in compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh versus Neha case, in which opposite party no. 2, husband has shown his gross income Rs. 59,702/- and after deduction it is Rs. 53,866/- out of which Rs. 13,000/- per month has been fixed by the learned trial court. She further submits that the revisionist is also highly qualified and completed M.Sc. & M.Phil, therefore, the amount of maintenance as fixed by the learned trial court is less than sufficient and disproportionate to the income of opposite party no. 2, the status of wife/ the revisionist, therefore, request to enhance the amount of maintenance of revisionist. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance that is about 25 % of the net income of the husband which is in the tune of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 and the income of the husband who is a teacher in a school and gets gross salary Rs. 59,702/- after deduction Rs. 53,866/-, out of which maintenance Rs. 13,000/- per month as fixed by the learned trial court are about 25 % of the net salary as per observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383, therefore, it cannot be said to be disproportionate or less than sufficient. Thus, there appears no any ground to make interference in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 24.03.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance as aforesaid but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad