HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3347 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Sri Chandan Bhagat, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Keshari Nandan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Meerut in Case No.867 of 2021 (Smt. Sanyukta Vs. Ajay Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the respondent no.2, who is husband of the revisionist directed to pay Rs.8000/- per month as monthly maintenance on the date of filing of the application dated 19.10.2021. The revisionist is aggrieved by the maintenance awarded to her and she has claimed for enhancement of maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with respondent no.2 on 26.02.2015 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. It is further submitted that the revisionist is not earning lady and she is well educated and has qualification of M.Sc Biology and B.Ed and she could not get a job despite her best efforts. On the contrary, the respondent no.2 is Junior Engineer working in Rural Engineering Department, Baghpat, his gross salary is Rs.73,000/- per month and net salary has been computed as Rs.65,000/- per month after deductions. The respondent no.2 has also admitted in his evidence that he is ready to pay expenses of his wife but he is not in a position to pay Rs.35,000/- per month as maintenance as claimed. It is further submitted that revisionist suffered minor burn accidental prior before the marriage, which is exaggerated by the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Chandan Bhagat Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Keshari Nandan Singh Smt. Sanyukta .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) respondent no.2. The law is well settled in this regard and perused the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court that wife is entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so that she could be able to live a life commensurate to social. The amount of Rs.8000/- as maintenance is in sufficient for the revisionist to live proper life. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the revisionist is earning member. The respondent has never refused to maintain her wife. The amount claimed by her is improper and respondent no.2 is not in a position to pay the same due to financial condition and his financial obligation of the family as he has to maintain his parents also. It is further submitted that the revisionist left her matrimonial home as she was not ready to live with her husband and in-laws. It is further submitted that the revisionist is running a beauty parlor and gift distribution. It is next submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized from the side to revisionist. 5. The learned trial court has decided the interim maintenance in favour of the revisionist and has given a finding, which is based on evidence to the effect that applicant is legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2. She is living separately from her husband for insufficient reason and opposite party no.2 is unable to maintain her and pay for her expenses. He has admitted in his evidence that right from separation of the applicant from him, he has not paid any sum of money to meet out her expenses as she is not living with him, how he could pay for expenses. However, learned trial court has awarded a fraction of net salary of opposite party no.2 as maintenance to the applicant. The reliance has been placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chaudhary Vs. Rita Dey Chaudhary Nee, Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has placed reliance on earlier judgement in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari and others (1970) 3 SCC 129 held that 25% of net monthly income of the respondent should be awarded as a proper maintenance to the applicant wife in proceeding under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act. On consideration of the matter relied between the parties as evidence on record, this Court is of the view that amount of maintenance awarded by impugned judgement and order is insufficient in view of monthly net salary of respondent no.2 and quantum of maintenance is liable to be enhanced. The amount of maintenance should be commensurate income of the husband. CRLR No. 3347 of 2024 2 6. Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed. 7. It is directed that the amount interim maintenance is enhanced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. The other conditions as directed by the court below in the impugned order are not being interfered with and will be remained intact. 8. Any amount received as maintenance by the applicant in any earlier are perspective and proceeding shall be liable to be adjusted from the amount of maintenance awarded in this order. 9. It is clarified that the parties will be at liberty to seek alteration of amount of maintenance in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the court below. September 4, 2025 Sanjeet CRLR No. 3347 of 2024 3 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad