HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3073 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists with prayer to set aside the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Agra, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 817 of 2020 (Smt. Geeta Devi Versus Satyabhan Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Khandauli, District Agra, whereby application for maintenance has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.3-Km. Vanshika (till she attains the age of majority) daughter of the revisionist from the date of application. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the opposite party no.2 is living separately without any sufficient reason along with her minor daughter. Earlier the revisionist was doing some private job and now he is unemployed on account of the matrimonial litigation. It is further submitted that the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the trial court is excessive and exorbitant. Learned counsel further submits that amount of arrears is so huge, therefore, he is not in a position to deposit it in one stroke and in alternative, he prayed that the amount of arrears may be divided into easy instalments. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 have opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionist and stated that on account of Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Singh Satyabhan Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. & 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) cruelty and harassment being caused by the revisionist and his other family members, the opposite party no.2 started living separately. It is also argued that the revisionist has illicit relations with his elder Bhabhi. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submits that the opposite party no.2 has no source of income and she is simply a housewife and the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month in total awarded by the trial court is not excessive keeping in view the inflation rate, cost of living, education and medical expenses etc. 5. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties and of learned AGA and perused the judgment and order dated 03.04.2024 of the trial court, it appears that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and the opposite party no.3 is the minor daughter of the revisionist. It also reflects from the record that the opposite party no.2 has no source of income and she is simply a housewife. It further appears from the findings of the trial court while deciding issue no.2 that opposite party no.2 is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. 6. Now the question raised for consideration before this Court is that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is excessive and not in commensurate with the income of the revisionist is concerned, however, there is no documentary evidence on record to show the income of the revisionist, though, on behalf of the revisionist it has been stated that earlier he was in some private job but on account of the litigation he left that job. The revisionist did not claim that he has any physical infirmity, hence, he is not able to earn money. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, observed that if husband is able bodied person, it is legal and pious duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children. 7. Since the revisionist is not in any employment right now, even if, it is assumed that the revisionist is doing the work of labour, even then, he would earn Rs.600/- per day and accordingly, he can earn Rs.18,000/- per month and as per the observations of the Apex Court, 25% of the net salary of the husband can be fixed as maintenance to the wife, which comes to Rs.4,500/- and the amount of Rs.5,000/- which has been awarded by the trial court is near to it. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2022 and the award was passed in the year 2024, thus, it is also a fact that during this period inflation rate has increased, hence the amount of Rs.5,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. The opposite party no.3-Vanshika CRLR No. 3073 of 2024 2 is the minor daughter and she is growing day-by-day, certainly her expenses might have increased like education and other misc. expenses, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be excessive and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision being bereft of merit is dismissed. 9. It has been apprised by the learned counsel for the parties that there is huge amount of arrears, which are to be paid by the revisionist, which cannot be paid in one stroke, therefore, it is divided in twelve equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The rest of the eleven instalments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. September 19, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 3073 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad