Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35061 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3868 of 2024 Revisionist :- Raju Raghav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 8.7.2024 passed by Principal Judge Family Court Bulandshahr in Maintenance Case No. 1303 of 2021 under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to his wife Jyoti and sum of Rs. 8000/- per month to his minor daughter from the date of filing application dated 26.10.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that this is admitted fact that marriage of revisionist was solemnised on 3.3.2014 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The couple was blessed with a girl on 20.4.2017 who is named as Shaili. The revisionist was posted as Constable in C.R.P.F. The respondent no. 2 has left her matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and therefore the claim for maintenance is barred under section 125(4) Cr.P.C. 3. He next submitted that learned court below has observed in the impugned order that in month of September 2022, the opposite party received Rs. 62,406/- as gross salary. The revisionist has taken housing loan and vehicle loan from Bank and after repayment of loans he gets net salary Rs. 48,706/-. The amount of maintenance awarded to the applicants is Rs. 20,000/- per month which is more than 30% of net salary income of the revisionist. The revisionist is not in a position to pay Rs. 20,000/- as maintenance to the applicant out of his net salaried income. 4. Revisionist have paid Rs. 7 lacs to respondent no. 2 on 28.6.2019 for purchasing a plot through Bank account of her mother and learned court below has observed in paragraph no. 36 of the impugned judgement that the applicant and her brother who appeared as witness in the case, feigned ignorance of this fact but have not denied this. Respondent no. 2 has also withdrawn a huge sum of money by using ATM of the revisionist on time to time. Respondent no. 2 is graduate and had taken course of beautician and she also gives tuition to the children from which she is earning total Rs. 50,000/- per month. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that respondent no. 2 and her witness have expressed lack of knowledge about said Rs. 7,00,000/-which revisionist claims to have paid her for purchasing a plot, it cannot be presumed that they have admitted this fact in their statement. 6. He next submitted that in present gross salary of revisionist is Rs. 65,000/- per month and the amount awarded in the impugned judgement is less than 30% of net salary of revisionist. Respondent no. 2 and her daughter cannot be deprived off their legitimate right only due to fact that revisionist has taken vehicle and housing loan for his own benefit. It is admitted fact that respondent no. 2 and 3 living separately from the revisionist. He also submitted that respondent no. 2 was forced to leave his matrimonial home on being subjected to matrimonial cruelty by his husband and in-laws. 7. Learned court below has given a finding that respondent no. 2 is living separately form her husband due to sufficient cause and that finding of fact is based on evidence on record and no interference is called for in present revision. Respondent no. 2 is working as Constable in CRPF and is entitled to maintain her wife and minor daughter. 8. Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the income of the revisionist as reveals from his salary slip, gross salary income after deduction and his net salary after repayment of Bank loan, I find no substantial, factual and legal error in the impugned judgement and order passed by this Court, however, keeping in view the financial liability of the revisionist which has been incurred by taking housing and vehicle loan from Bank, I find some slight deduction is called for in amount of maintenance therefore it is directed that amount of maintenance awarded to applicant Jyoti is reduced from Rs. 12,000/- per month to Rs. 12,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month and amount of applicant no. 2 reduced from Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 7000/- per month. 9. The arrears will be paid within five equal monthly installments. The first installment will be payable on 28.3.2025 subsequent installments will be payable in succeeding months and failing which learned court below will have liberty to proceed for execution as modified by this Court in accordance with law. Other conditions and directions issued by learned court below in the impugned judgement and order are not interfered with and revision is partly allowed with above modification. 10. The revision stands partly allowed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 SY Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad