HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4538 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist 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 present revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1st, Gorakhpur in Case No. 318 of 2020 (Ranjana Jaiswal & another Vs. Brijesh Jaiswal) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Police Station Chiluaataal, District Gorakhpur 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 and 3 is minor child who is living separate from him and moved an application under Section 125 which was decided by the learned trial court by order dated 13.06.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of minor child from the date of application to the date of order and from the date of order Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 3,000/- in favour of minor daughter, total amount of maintenance Rs. 7,000/- per month. He further submits that there is no any source of income to the revisionist even though the learned trial court has fixed the total amount of maintenance Rs. 7,000/- per month which is excessive and beyond his paying capacity, since he works as labourer, therefore, request to reduce the amount of maintenance and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case due to misbehavior on the part of the revisionist, the opposite party no. 2 is living in her maika with the minor child under compulsion. She has clearly stated that she was beaten by the husband that was the reason she was compelled to live separate from him. Once there was compromise between Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Satya Priya Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bipin Kumar Tripathi, G.A., Shubham Brijesh Jaiswal .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the parties and the wife started living with the revisionist but again she was tortured, harassed and was expelled from the matrimonial house since then she was living in her maika. The revisionist has not paid any amount for the maintenance of wife and minor child. There is agricultural land in the family of the revisionist and his father also owns a pick up vehicle by which they make income. The amount so fixed by the learned trial court as maintenance in favour of wife and minor child from the date of order cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. The learned trial court has already granted concession in favour of the revisionist in fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of wife and minor child from the date of application to the date of order. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 13.06.2025 but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. . On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 13.06.2025, it appears that admittedly the opposite party no. 2 and 3 are wife and minor daughter of the revisionist those are living apart from him in her maika due to his neglect. No any amount has been given to them for their maintenance. The revisionist being able bodied person is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and the minor child living apart from him. The learned trial court has already granted concession in his favour and fixed the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of wife and minor daughter from the date of application to the date of order but fixed the amount Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of minor daughter from the date of order. The amount so fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 13.06.2025 but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. September 17, 2025 Suraj Srivastav CRLR No. 4538 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad