HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4195 of 2025 Court No. - 84 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. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shamli in Criminal Misc. Case No. 446 of 2024 (Smt. Ramal Vs. Ankur Malik) under Section 144 of B.N.S.S./125 Cr.P.C., whereby the Ld. Judge has directed the revisionist to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 respectively from the date of the application i.e. 20.08.2024 and further 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 wife of the revisionist who is living apart from him without any sufficient cause. He further submits that marriage was performed on 16.02.2023 and she started living separate from 11.08.2024. He also submits that she herself ill-treated the revisionist and other members of his family. She is working lady and is efficient in making income since she has completed G.N.M course and is working in hospital and getting salary Rs. 40,000/- per month. She also files Income Tax Return. The I.T.R. relating to the financial year 2023-2024 showing her income Rs. 4,93,250/- annually, therefore, it cannot be said that she is not able to maintain herself. On the other hand, the revisionist works on the post of M.T.S. in R.M.L. Hospital, Delhi and gets salary Rs. 41,375/- per month. He has no sufficient Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dinkar Lal, Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Lokesh Kumar Ankur Malik .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) agricultural land and no any other source of income. No any shop is being run by him. He has some other liabilities also as to maintain his mother, who is old. The photograph showing his presence in a confectionery shop is owned by his brother but it is not his own. The learned trial court did not consider this fact but fixed the amount of maintenance assuming the income of the revisionist to be Rs. 70,000/- per month that is excessive and disproportionate and without taking into consideration the earnings of the opposite party no.2/the wife, therefore, request to reduce the amount. Learned counsel for the opposite party opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the fact about the filing of I.T.R. relating to the financial year 2023-2024 showing her annual income Rs. 4,93,250/- though he contends that this I.T.R. was filed by the revisionist himself for the purpose of taking loan from the bank but later on there arose dispute that was the reason loan could not be taken on the basis of that I.T.R. 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., the order passed by the learned trial court dated 18.06.2025 and perusal of record, in considered opinion of this Court the amount so fixed by the learned trial court is excessive and disproportionate to the income of the husband, therefore, it is liable to be reduced. Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance in favour of wife is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- per month from Rs. 20,000/- per month in favour of wife from the date of application. September 18, 2025 Suraj Srivastav CRLR No. 4195 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad