Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55690 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3387 of 2024 Revisionist :- Prakash Azad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Salim Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Sri Awadh Bihari Pandey, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, is taken on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 23.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, under section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 22000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 from the date of application in Case No. 1113 of 2020 and with further prayer to stay the operation and effect of the judgment and order dated 23.05.2025. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist and marriage was performed in the year 2018. The wife without any reasonable excuse started living in her parental house from the year 2020 and filed an application for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by the learned trial court by order dated 23.05.2024 awarding the amount of Rs. 22,000/- as maintenance per month. It is also submitted that the revisionist works as an engineer in Tec Mahindra at NOIDA and get net salary of Rs. 79,265/- per month, as per the salary slip from the period of 01.02.2024 to 29.02.2024 as on record filed through supplementary affidavit. He also submits that the opposite party no. 2 being wife may not be entitled for the amount of maintenance to the extent of 25% of net salary of the husband where, there are other liabilities on the husband to maintain other members of his family. These libalities are also to be taken into consideration for fixing the amount of maintenance. He also submits that there are old parents with the revisionist and also unmarried sister who is ill and the expenses of treatment are borne by the revisionist himself, therefore, he is not in a position to make payment of Rs. 22,000/- per month fixed as monthly maintenance by the learned trial court without considering the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside as being illegal. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the opposite party no. 2 is wife and is entitled for maintenance from the husband and there is reasonable excuse to live separate from the husband since, the behavior of the husband was not good with his wife. He made the wife run away from the house after beating and then filed a petition for divorce which shows that the husband is not willing to let her live in his house. The amount of maintenance of Rs. 22,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive in view of the status of the wife and the income of the revisionist. On considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the order passed by learned trial court, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist who is living separate from him. There is allegation against the husband that he misbehaved with her and she went to her parental house and still living there. A case for divorce has also been filed by the revisionist against the opposite party no. 2, the wife. It infers that she is living in her father's house with reasonable excuse and is not in a position to maintain herself. On the other hand, the husband/the revisionist is able bodied person and earns Rs. 79,265/- as net salary by working as an engineer in Tec Mahindra at NOIDA, therefore, he is under legal obligation to maintain his wife, who is living separate from him. So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, it may be to the extent of 25% of his net salary i.e. about Rs. 20,000/- per month. In considered opinion of this Court and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari and Another (1970) 3 SCC 129 and followed in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy on 19 April, 2017 AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by learned trial court dated 23.05.2024 cannot be said to be lawful to the extent of amount allowed for maintenance to the wife i.e. Rs. 22,000/- per month which is more than 25% of his net salary, therefore, it cannot be said to be proper. In this way, the order passed by learned trial court warrants interference and is accordingly modified. The amount of maintenance Rs. 22,000/- per month is reduced to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of application and the amount paid by the revisionist as interim maintenance in favour of wife either in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment in the amount of maintenance in the present case. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed and the amount of Rs. 20,000/- is to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 in the place of Rs. 22,000/- by the revisionist in terms of order passed by the learned trial court. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Nisha Digitally signed by :- nisha kumari High Court of Judicature at Allahabad