HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6330 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Jayendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, passed in Maintenance Case No. 522 of 2020 (Smt. Anjulika alias Anjul vs. Amar Kumar Chauhan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) from the date of application i.e. 24.07.2020 and Rs. 7000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) from the date of the impugned order. 3. The sole argument made by learned counsel for the revisionist is that he is ready to pay the amount of maintenance as opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife while the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is too excessive since the revisionist is not in service and has no source of income. However he admitted that he was working as a labour under a contractor in Horticulture Department but now he is unemployed. All these factors were not taken into consideration by learned court below while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set-aside the order passed by learned court below and allow the revision and reduce the amount. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jayendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gaurav Srivastav, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Amar Kumar Chouhan .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that revisionist has not come before this Court with clean hand. It is also submitted that at the time of marriage, a swift car was given to him as dowry and the father of opposite party no.2 was Branch Manager in PNB Bank and it is not expected that a person having a post of a Manager will not solemnize marriage of his daughter with a labour class person. It is further submitted that the revisionist has sufficient means and due to negligence on the part of the revisionist, the opposite party no.2 is living separately from the revisionist at her parental house. The revisionist has also filed an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the ground that opposite party no.2 is suffering from spinal disease and the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court cannot said to be excessive and beyond his capacity but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned court below dated 02.04.2024, from the record it transpires that so far as the relationship between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 is concerned, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The revisionist has also invited the attention of the Court to the impunged judgment in para no.12, the revisionist has admitted that he got a car which was given to him as a dowry, and the same is using by himself. However there is no documentary evidence on record regarding the income of the revisionist whereas the revisionist filed his account statement in which the amount is being transferred from treasury which is below the amount of Rs. 5000/- in a month. 6. It is also admitted by the opposite party no.2 that she has no other source of income while there is proven facts showing that she is physically disabled. 7. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "the plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to CRLR No. 6330 of 2024 2 maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications." This fact has not been denied that the revisionist is an able bodied person even he is considered as a labour, who earns Rs. 600/- per day which comes to Rs. 18000/- per month. In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the total income of the husband. It is also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the objective of granting permanent alimony is to ensure that the defendant spouse is not become to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage and not as a punishment to other spouse. 8. Keeping in view of the income of revisionist Rs. 20,000/- per month (in round figure), it is considered opinion of this Court that the amount of maintenance has been fixed by the learned court below is excessive as the per the income of the revisionist, hence it is reduced to Rs. 5000/- per month in place of Rs. 7000/- to the opposite party no.2, payable from the date passing of the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 is modified to the above extent. 9. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned order in place of Rs. 7000/-. 10. The amount received by the opposite party nos. 2 as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment. 11. In such circumstances, it is directed that the revisionist shall pay the total arrears as awarded by the trial court in favour of opposite party no.2 in 10 equal installments on the 7th day of each calendar month. The first installment shall commence from 7th October 2025. It is further directed that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 regularly from the next month i.e. October 2025 as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment. September 11, 2025 C. MANI CRLR No. 6330 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad