Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64236 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4152 of 2024 Revisionist :- Adarsh Kumar Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Chandra Kushwaha Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. This Crl. Revision has been filed by the revisionist by the revisionist with a prayer to allow the criminal revision and set aside the order dated 6.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, room No.03, Deoria in Case No. 692 of 2020( Garima Devi Vs. Adarsh Kumar Kushwaha), under section 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station Khukhundu, District, Deoria. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case he is husband of opposite party No.2 and was wedded in the year 2019. The opposite party No.2 was not willing to live with the revisionist due to some reasons that is why she started separately from the revisionist from the year 2020 without any reasonable excuse.The revisionist never subjected her to cruelty or harassment. He was always ready and willing to bring his wife to her home but she refused to come. The mediation was also failed and wife herself filed a suit for divorce in which decree for judicial separation was made at the instance of the wife herself. It also shows that the wife was neglecting the revisionist. Even though the learned trial court allowed the application under section 125 Cr.P.C vide order dated 6.7.2024 fixing the amount Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance though the income of the revisionist is Rs.23129/- only by teaching coaching classes. The amount so fixed is too much and beyond the paying capacity of the revisionist, therefore, request to reduce the amount so fixed by the learned trial court. He also submits that the opposite party No.2 is also B.Ed. degree holder and is capable to maintain herself. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the revisionist treated the opposite party No.2 with cruelty and demand of dowry was also made and she was subjected to harassment that was the reason she went to her Mayaka and started living there. She has no work and also no any income. The revisionist teaches coaching classes and makes earning about Rs.70000-75000/- and amount fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be in excess but is less than sufficient in view of status of husband and wife. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party No.2, wife is living separate from the husband due to neglect on his part and the revisionist earns Rs.23129/- as appears from the salary statement for the month of April, 2021 from the Learning Closet Private Limited. In view of salary of the revisionist, the amount of Rs.10,000/- cannot be said to be proportionate. In view of observation made by the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Kulbhushan Vs. Rajkumari 25% of net salary of the husband may be given to the wife as maintenance. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.10,000/- is reduced to Rs. 6000/- per month from the date of application. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 G.S Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad