Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81045 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4161 of 2024 Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Gautam Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, 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 present revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras, in Case No. 356 of 2020 (Smt. Nitesh Sharma Vs. Amit Kumar Sharma) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sasni, District Hathras. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are wife and minor daughter of the revisionist. The opposite party no. 2 is living separate from the revisionist without any sufficient cause and filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which was decided by the learned Trial Court by order dated 24.05.2024 fixing the amount of Rs. 6,000/- in favour of the wife and Rs. 7,500/- in favour of minor daughter. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2 is highly qualified i.e. M.A. B.Ed. and U.P. T.E.T. and is able to earn her income and to maintain herself. This fact was not considered by the learned Trial Court while passing the order dated 24.05.2024 and fixing the amount. He also submits that the revisionist is teacher and gets salary i.e. Rs. 60,635/- per month and after deduction it comes to Rs. 48,703/- out of which Rs. 13,500/- is excessive and disproportionate since the revisionist is to bear the liabilities of expenses on his parents. He also submits that the wife left his house in the year 2020 and made false allegations against him and other members of his family and lodged F.I.R., which shows that she was behaving cruelly. In view of the aforesaid facts, the wife can not be said to be living separate from the husband with sufficient cause entitling herself for maintenance and the order passed by learned Trial Court dated 24.05.2024 being illegal is liable to be set aside. He also submits that the learned Trial Court has not divided the amount of arrears of maintenance into installments for easy payment from the date of application. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the marriage of opposite party no. 2 was performed in the year 2017 with the revisionist and a female child- opposite party no. 3 was borne from the wedlock. Thereafter, the revisionist and other members of his family started misbehaving her and also she was subjected to harassment. She was beaten by the revisionist and a case was also got registered by her against them. Though, she is highly qualified yet her time is spent in maintaining her minor daughter and she works nowhere to make income so she is dependent on her parents. The revisionist, being teacher, and getting handsome salary is under legal obligation to maintain his wife, unable to maintain herself and the minor daughter. Learned Trial Court has considered all these facts and allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. though, the amount fixed by the learned Court is less than sufficient and disproportionate to the income of the husband and is liable to be enhanced. 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. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 24.05.2024, it appears that the marriage of opposite party no. 2 and the revisionist was performed in the year 2017. Out of the wedlock the daughter- opposite party no. 3 was borne and from the year 2019 she is living apart from the husband due to misbehavior on his part. Even, from the statement of the revisionist, it transpires that he has not visited his wife or his daughter. It also shows that he is ignorant towards his wife and minor daughter. He has also not paid any money to her either for her own maintenance or for the maintenance of minor child it also shows neglect on his part. Since he is teacher and gets net salary Rs. 48,703/- per month, therefore, he can not say that he has no means to maintain his wife and minor daughter. On the other hand, the wife / opposite party no. 2 though, highly qualified but is not working anywhere to make an income to maintain herself and her daughter, therefore, the revisionist is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughter and the amount Rs. 6,000/- in favour of wife and Rs. 7,500/- in favour of minor daughter can not be said to be excessive or more than his paying capacity. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned Trial Court and it does not warrant interference by this Court. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance from the date of application to the date of order is concerned, it shall be paid by the revisionist in six equal installments with the current amount of maintenance payable month to month. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of finally at the admission stage. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 SK Srivastava Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad