Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141812 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3049 of 2025 Revisionist :- Anupam Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhawani Prasad Shukla 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 perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1902 of 2021 (Smt. Madhu and another Vs. Anupam Chaudhary), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Premnagar, District Bareilly. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor daughter of the revisionist, aged about 6 years. The opposite party no. 2 is living separate from him without any sufficient cause with minor child and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance for herself and minor child. The learned trial court has allowed the application to the extent of minor child and rejected the application to the extent of wife as she being able to maintain herself and fixed amount of maintenance Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of minor child. Further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 works in Eteam Info Service company and gets Rs. 30,456/- per month as salary, therefore, she is able to maintain herself and also minor child. The liability to maintain the minor child comes on the shoulder of both the husband and wife, therefore, the learned trial court has committed error in fixing the amount of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of minor child against the revisionist and request to set aside the order dated 04.03.2025 and reduce the amount so fixed by the learned trial court. 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 the order passed by learned trial court, it appears that admittedly the opposite party no.2 is the wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor daughter aged about 6 years of the revisionist. The wife is living separate with the opposite party no. 3, the minor child, being brought up by her. No any amount is being given by the revisionist either to the wife or to the minor child for their maintenance. It also appears that the wife was working in Eteam Info Service company and Rs. 24516/- and Rs. 30,456/- were credited in her account from the period 20.10.2021 to 07.09.2022 , thereafter she stated that from the date 16.01.2023 no any amount was credited in her account since she is not working in that company at present. On the other hand, the revisionist is Assistant Teacher and his net salary is Rs. 55,000/- as admitted by himself. The learned trial court has rejected the application to the extent of wife/opposite party no. 2 for maintenance, as she makes earning as aforesaid and is able to maintain herself but fixed amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of minor daughter for her maintenance. Where the husband and wife both are working persons, the liability to maintain minor child comes on the shoulders of both the parties. In the present case, the minor child is being brought up by the wife herself alone who has received salary Rs. 30456/- from Eteam Info Service company in the year 2020-21. Though the revisionist is getting Rs. 55,000/- per month as net salary yet all the expenses of the minor child are being borne by the wife herself whereas she earns salary that is less than the husband, therefore Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of minor child against the revisionist/father cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient keeping in view the expenses of maintenance, education and other expenses incurred on the minor child. In this way, the order passed by learned trial court cannot be said to be illegal and in appropriate but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad