Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75650 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3431 of 2024 Revisionist :- Saurabh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Namit Srivastava,Sarthak Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Deshraj Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal in Misc. case no. 490 of 2023 (Neha Sirohi and another Vs. Saurabh Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of application and furthermore prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no. 2 is wedded wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor daughter. It is further submitted that there is no sufficient cause that the wife is living apart from him and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance which was decided by the learned court on 07.06.2024 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of minor daughter, total Rs. 20,000/- per month. He also submits that a case under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was also filed by the wife in which Rs. 6,000/- per month was fixed as interim maintenance which he is paying continuously. He also submits that there is no any dependent income of the revisionist but he lives with his parents. There is agricultural land in the name of his father but he is not owner of the aforesaid land. Anyhow, he maintains himself being dependent on his parents. He further submits that on the basis of agricultural land owned by his father the amount of maintenance has been fixed by the learned trial court though liability to maintain the wife cannot be fastened against the father-in-law but it may be against the husband. The amount of maintenance may be fixed on the basis of income of the husband not his parents. He further submits that the wife is also M.A., B.ed. and admittedly, she was working as lecturer in B.M.G. Inter College, Chandausi prior to the marriage which shows that she is well educated lady and is able to make income to maintain herself even though learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance which is excessive and beyond the paying capacity of the revisionist, therefore, request to reduce the amount of maintenance and also to adjust the amount being received by the opposite party no. 2 in other case i.e. under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case due to neglect on the part of revisionist, opposite party no. 2 is living apart from him with minor daughter. The revisionist is not maintaining her and not paying any expenses. He also submits that the revisionist is able bodied person and under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughter according to their status. He further contends that though the opposite party no. 2 is M.A., B.Ed. but now she is neither working anywhere as teacher nor making income by conducting tution classes. The amount of maintenance fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be more than sufficient or excessive but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 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. and perusal of material on record, the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that due to misbehavior on the part of revisionist, the opposite party no. 2 is living apart with her minor daughter and no expenses were given to her for her maintenance and the minor child. The opposite party no. 2 though M.A., B.Ed. is not working anywhere either as a teacher or as a tution teacher. There is nothing on record to show that she is making income to maintain herself and the minor daughter. On the other hand, the revisionist is also well qualified and able bodied person. He is bound to maintain his wife and minor daughter according to their status taking in view of the expenses and status of the parties. In considered opinion of this Court, the amount in favour of wife Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance seems to be excessive, therefore, it is liable to be reduced to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance Rs. 15,000/- in favour of wife is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- and the amount of maintenance in favour of minor daughter will remain the same i.e. Rs. 5,000/- per month. The amount received or being received as interim maintenance or maintenance by the wife in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment in the present amount. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad