HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3348 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist in Court today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Manjur Mohammad Ansari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 3. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 249 of 2022 (Jeenat Parveen Vs. Ismail Khan) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra, by which the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application i.e. 21.06.2022. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is unemployed and doing nothing and further he is suffering from cancer and at present he is admitted in S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj. He further submitted that the amount of Rs.8,000/- awarded by the trial court is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. However, he admitted that the opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife, hence prayed that the amount of maintenance may kindly be reduced. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has stated that during the course of cross-examination before the trial court, the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manjur Mohammad Ansari, Mo Shadab, Mohd Haleem Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Santosh Kumar Dubey, Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay Ismail Khan .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) revisionist has admitted that his income is Rs.25,000/- per month. If, now he is unemployed and suffering from cancer, these are the changed circumstances and the revisionist has an option to move application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for alteration/modification of the impugned order by pleading that the amount awarded by the trial court is excessive and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. 6. 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 03.05.2024 of the trial court, it is admitted by the revisionist that he is physically fit and has not suffered with any disease. He is earning Rs.25,000/- in Saudi. However, he also tried to demonstrate that at present he is doing the work of driver in District Sonbhadra and earns Rs.9,000/- per month but the trial court has not found it reliable and reached at the conclusion that the monthly income of the revisionist Rs.25,000/- is more reliable. 7. So far as relation between the parties are concerned, it is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The trial court while deciding the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has categorically recorded its finding on the issue. It also reflects from the judgment that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient cause due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. This Court being the Revisional, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also substitute its own finding in place of findings of fact recorded by the trial court on the issue in question unless the finding is completely perverse and against the facts and law. 8. So far as income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the amount of maintenance is based on the evidence of the revisionist himself, when the revisionist was in Saudi, if he can earns Rs.25,000/- why he cannot easily earn the same amount in India, if he is an able bodied person. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is admitted that the income of the revisionist is Rs.25,000/- per month and in view of the observations of 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, the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband, which comes to Rs.6,250/- and the amount awarded by the trial CRLR No. 3348 of 2024 2 court is in higher side, hence, the amount of Rs.8,000/- per month awarded by the trial court deserves to be reduced. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.8,000/- per month is reduced to Rs.6,250/- per month from the date of application. The amount of arrears shall also be calculated at the rate of Rs.6,250/- per month. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. 11. So far as the argument that the revisionist is suffering from cancer is concerned, a supplementary affidavit has been filed in which some photographs have been annexed, which shows that some surgery took place and the revisionist is on the bed and these are the change circumstances, that being so, it is always open for the revisionist to move application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for alteration/modification of the order impugned. 12. 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 ten equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The rest nine instalments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. 13. With the observations/directions, the instant criminal revision is partly allowed. September 23, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 3348 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad