HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3546 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Ravi Shanker Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the present revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2025 passed by Additinal Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah in Case No.217/2019 (Smt. Poonam Gupta vs. Totaram @ Subodh Gupta) under Section 127 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah. 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 son of the revisionist those are living apart from him from the year 2014. Further submitted that an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by her which was decided by order dated 30.01.2019 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.3000/- per month in favour of minor child. She again moved an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance which was registered as Case No.217/2019 and decided on 27.05.2025 enhancing the amount of maintenance Rs.8000/- per month on the place of Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.6000/- per month on place of Rs.3000/- per month in favour of minor child from the date of order. He further submits that the basic salary of the revisionist is Rs.26,000/- per month as disclosed in paper no.31Kha/1 dated 15.02.2025. He works as Lab Attendant in U.P. Ayurvigyan Sansthan, Safai. There are some other liabilities on him and it incurs expenses in relation to those Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Akash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ravi Shanker Pathak Totaram Alias Subodh Gupta .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) liabilities. It is also submitted that the opposite party no.2 has alleged that she is living in a rented house but during the course of trial it became evident that she is living in father's house and she is not living in a rented house. In this way, the amount as enhanced by the learned trial court in favour of wife is excessive though he has no objection in giving the amount as fixed in favour of minor child, therefore, request to reduce the amount as fixed by learned trial court in favour of wife to Rs.5000/- per month on the place of Rs.8000/- per month. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that admittedly the basic salary of the revisionist is Rs.26,000/- per month on which 55% D.A. is also payable on the basis of which his salary become more than Rs.40,000/- per month out of which the amount of maintenance Rs.8000/- per month in favour of wife Rs.6000/- per month in favour of minor child cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient and disproportionate to his income. The child is school going and studying in Class-VI and papers regarding expenses on education were filed before the learned trial court. 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 the learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party no.2 & 3 are wedded wife and minor child of the revisionist those are living separate from him due to his neglect regarding which an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was already allowed and amount of maintenance was fixed Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.3000/- per month in favour of minor child by order dated 30.01.2019. The learned trial court has enhanced the amount of maintenance Rs.8000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.6000/- per month in favour of child, total amount of Rs.14,000/- per month from the date of order i.e. 27.05.2025. The revisionist is Lab Attendant in U.P. Ayurvigyan Sansthan, Safai and his basic salary Rs.26,000/- per month as admitted by him on which 55% D.A. is also payable. In this way, his salary becomes more than Rs.40,000/- per month out of which Rs.14,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of wife and minor child cannot be said excessive or more than sufficient and disproportionate to his income. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. CRLR No. 3546 of 2025 2 Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. September 17, 2025 Ashok Gupta CRLR No. 3546 of 2025 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad