Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132049 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2957 of 2025 Revisionist :- Chandan Gupta Alias Samiksha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Srivastava 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. and perusal the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to allow this revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia, in Maintenance Case No. 728 of 2019 (Chandan Gupta @ Samiksha vs. Santosh @ Sameer Gupta)( Computerized No. UPBL-020021612019), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Baansdeeh Road, District Ballia. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is husband of revisionist. Her marriage was performed in the year, 2017, thereafter, due to neglect of revisionist, opposite party no. 2 was compelled to live separate from the year 2018. She filed application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by learned trial court by order dated 18.04.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month on the basis of Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2019-20. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the income of opposite party no. 2 is Rs. 1,00,000/- per month but learned trial court did not consider his income and fix the amount on the basis of Income Tax Return. It is submitted that the amount of maintenance awarded by learned trial court is disproportionate and is liable to be increased. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On 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 order passed by learned trial court, it appears that admittedly, the marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was performed in the year, 2017 and thereafter,due to neglect of the opposite party no. 2, she was compelled to live separate from him from the year, 2018. She filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by learned trial court on the basis of material available on record and the amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month has been fixed as maintenance. The opposite party no. 2 has stated himself to be working in Kitchen Adhariya Company, Nagpur, Maharashtra and getting salary Rs. 8,000/- per month. The revisionist has stated about him that he is Branch Director in Belteej Company but there is nothing on record to show that he is working there and is getting income more than the amount shown in the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2019- 20. As per Income Tax Return, the annual income is Rs. 2,94,967/- and when divided into months, it becomes about Rs. 24,500/- per month, out of which Rs. 7,000/- as maintenance cannot be said to be disproportionate or less than sufficient as per observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. Thus, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 sailesh Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad