Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3467 of 2024 Revisionist :- Rohit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaytri Rajput,Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajay Sengar,G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Akshay Raj Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Misc. Case No. 150 of 2022 (Smt. Akansha Vs. Rohit), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wedded wife of the revisionist and the marriage was performed in the year 2021. Without any sufficient cause, she started living in her maika. In the meantime, there was compromise and she came to his house but again she left him and filed present application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court allowed the application and fixed the amount Rs. 5000/- in favour of wife from the date of application. Further submitted that he is still unemployed person and making preparation of competitive examination. Though in the year 2010-11 he completed D-pharma but still unemployed and not working in any medical store. The amount so fixed by the learned trial court is excessive and beyond paying capacity of the revisionist, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated 13.06.2024 and to reduce the amount and also it be fixed from the date of order on the place of date of application. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that due to neglect on the part of the revisionist, the opposite party no. 2/wife is living separate from him. She has no father and she is always willing to live with the revisionist but he has filed a petition under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act for divorce from her which also shows that he is not willing to keep her as wife. Further contended that the revisionist beat her and subjected to harassment that was the reason an F.I.R. was lodged against him and injuries were also medically examined. The copy of which was filed before the learned trial court showing the misbehavior on the part of the revisionist. The revisionist keeps medical store and earns Rs. 40,000/- per month and also there is agricultural land. In this way, the amount was fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be beyond paying capacity of the revisionist. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for 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 is wedded wife of the revisionist who is living apart from him due to neglect. Copies of the F.I.R. and medical report has also been filed by the opposite party no. 2 before the learned trial court that show misbehavior on the part of the revisionist with her. The revisionist is an educated person who completed D-pharma in the year 2010-11 and allegedly he operates the business of medical store though he denied this fact and told himself to be labourer but he is able bodied person and able to make earning. On the other hand, there is nothing on record to show that she has any source of income. The amount Rs. 5000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient for maintenance of wife according to the educational and social status of both the parties. As per observation made in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324 the amount of maintenance is to be fixed from the date of application not from the date of order. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad