Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84588 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3679 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt. Fatma And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amar Nath Tiwari,Mohammad Abid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nirbhay Kumar Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Case called out in the revised list. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants is present. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is not present. 3. On 20.03.2025 stop order was passed regarding filing of counter affidavit. Despite the same, no counter affidavit has been filed. This Court, therefore, proceeds to consider the matter on merits. 4. Admit. 5. Considering the fact that the entire material place before the Principal Judge Family Court has already been annexed along with the paper-book, and the fact that the matter was decided ex-parte by the learned Principal Judge after the opposite party no. 2 had filed written statement but did not contest the proceedings, summoning of record of the court below would delay disposal of the matter and, therefore, summoning of record is hereby dispensed with. 6. The instant revision has been filed seeking modification of the impugned order dated 03.06.2024, whereby the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Bareilly has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as monthly maintenance to be paid by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicant no. 1 and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month for applicant no. 2. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no. 1 was forced to leave matrimonial home on 25.07.2022 on the ground of cruelty committed by opposite party no. 2, in relation whereto criminal proceedings were lodged. It is contended that the minor daughter aged about 5 years is residing with the applicant and neither any amount has been paid by the opposite party no. 2 nor has he taken care of either of the applicants. As regards claim for maintenance, submission is that in the written statement itself, the opposite party no. 2 had admitted his working status in Public Works Department and even his salary of Rs. 27,347/- per month was admitted by him, despite the same, learned court below has awarded a meager sum of maintenance. 8. On perusal of record, the Court finds that though a claim of Rs. 25,000/- per month for applicant no. 1 and Rs. 15,000/- per month for applicant no. 2 was raised by the applicants stating that the opposite party no. 2 was earning monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/- and, apart from this, the mother of opposite party no. 2 was also receiving Rs. 18,000/- as monthly pension, no concrete evidence to that effect was led by the applicants except filing affidavit. Nevertheless, the opposite party no. 2 having admitted his monthly salary Rs. 27,347/- despite the fact the matter had proceeded ex parte after filing of the written statement and no statement of opposite party no. 2 was recorded because of his disappearance from the proceedings, the admission contained in the written statement at least for the purposes of computation of reasonable amount of maintenance was sufficient in the facts of the case. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court towards a copy of Fees-Card issued by S.S. International Academy, Mohalla Uncha, Faridpur, Bareilly for the Session 2024-25 demonstrating that the applicant no. 2 is studying in Class-Nursery in the said institution and the applicant no. 1 is depositing fees. It is further urged that the entire responsibility of maintaining applicant nos. 1 and 2 is on the shoulder of the applicant no. 1, whose father has already died. 10. Considering the facts of the case, I find that the learned Principal Judge has not recorded any finding as regards quantum of maintenance. The only discussion is contained in paragraph no. 7 of the impugned order, which is quite lacking qua requirements and, without discussing anything, directly conclusion has been arrived at to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month maintenance bifurcated as Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-, as aforesaid. 11. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly should have taken a pragmatic view of the matter and considering all the circumstances and non-leading of evidence by the opposite party no. 2, it was a fit case where at least a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month should have been awarded from the date of application. 12. Consequently, the revision is allowed. 13. The impugned order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Maintenance Case No. 1200 of 2022 (Smt. Fatma and another vs. Taslim Shah) is modified and it is directed that the opposite party no. 2 shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month as maintenance amount, applicable for both the applicants from the date of filing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 14. The applicants are free to move appropriate application for implementation of this order before the court concerned. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Pkb/ Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad