HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3397 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for both the parties 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 03.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 3, Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 548 of 2019 (Suman Yadav Vs. Anand Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Deoria. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist who is living separate from him without any sufficient reason and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 03.05.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of wife from the date of application. During her cross-examination, she has not disclosed any sufficient cause to live separate from the husband. The revisionist is an unemployed person and is suffering from 60 % locomotive disability, therefore, it cannot be said that he is able bodied person and thus, having no any source of income is dependent on his mother who gets pension. The amount as fixed by learned trial court Rs. 7000/- per month is excessive and beyond paying capacity of the revisionist, since there is no any such income. As per statement of opposite party no. 2, the revisionist operates coaching centre and earns Rs. 65,000/- per month that is totally false. There is nothing on record to support this statement. The learned trial court did not consider all these facts but fixed the amount of maintenance as aforesaid, therefore, the order passed by learned trial court is liable to be set aside and amount as fixed by the learned trial court be reduced. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that when the opposite party no. 2/wife was living in her sasural, she was subjected to demand of dowry and harassment that was the reason she is living apart from him. The revisionist runs coaching centre and gets Rs. 65,000/- per Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sitaram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjeev Kumar Anand Yadav .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) month out of which amount of maintenance Rs. 7000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to his income. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 has stated in her examination in chief that she was subjected to demand of dowry and harassment by the revisionist, this is the reason she is living separate from her husband and he has not paid any amount to her for maintenance. There is no any source of income of wife, therefore, it cannot be said that she is able to maintain herself. The revisionist being husband is under legal obligation to maintain the wife who has no any source of income. There is disability certificate of the revisionist showing 60% locomotive disability related to both lower limb. There is no any other material on record to show that he is operating coaching classes and getting Rs. 65,000/- per month. The amount of maintenance as fixed by the learned trial court Rs. 7000/- per month appears to be excessive. In considered opinion of this Court the amount of maintenance is liable to be reduced to Rs. 5,000/- per month on the place of Rs. 7,000/- per month in favour of opposite part no.2/wife payable from the date of application. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance is concerned, it may be divided into 18 equal monthly installments payable with the current amount of maintenance per month. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance in favour of wife is reduced to Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of application on the place of Rs. 7000/- per month. September 4, 2025 Anurag Singh CRLR No. 3397 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad