HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3176 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Bulandshahar in Case No. 564 of 2023 (Smt. Reeta Bharti Vs. Aman Kumar Suman), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar and further prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is husband of the revisionist. Due to neglect on the part of the opposite party no. 2, the revisionist is living apart from him and she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 21.03.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 3000/- per month. Further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is B.Pharma equivalent to graduate degree and works as such in a medical store and makes handsome income. He has not disclosed his real income before the learned trial court but the learned trial court has without considering the status of the revisionist and also opposite party no. 2, fixed the amount as aforesaid that is less than sufficient, therefore request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and increase the amount of maintenance. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt Reeta Bharti .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are wife and husband and she is living apart from him due to his neglect. There is no any material on record to show about certain income of the opposite party no. 2. He has admitted that he is working in medical shop and getting Rs. 11,000/- per month as salary. No any material has been brought on record on the part of the revisionist to show that the opposite party no. 2 has concealed his income and told about Rs. 11,000/- per month falsely before the learned trial court. In such a situation of facts only on the basis of B.pharma qualification, it cannot be concluded that he is making handsome income unless there is any material on record. The revisionist is also law graduate and has capacity to earn something by legal practice. Out of income of opposite party no. 2, Rs. 11,000/- per month the amount of maintenance Rs. 3000/- per month as fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be disproportionate. In case the circumstances change and the revisionist gets any proof regarding more income of the opposite party no. 2 she may have an option to move an application before the learned trial court for enhancement of the amount of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. At this stage there appears no any illegality and impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. September 11, 2025 Anurag Singh CRLR No. 3176 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad