HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4640 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 4, Prayagraj in Maintenance Case No. 100 of 2022 (Munita Kushwaha Vs. Ranjeet Maurya), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the Family Court allowed the maintenance application of the opposite party no.2 and directed to the revisionist to pay Rs.4000/- from 29.04.2024 to 30.04.2025 and further Rs.4000/- per month from further date. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, opposite party no.2 is wife, who was married on 21.05.2021 and from 05.12.2021, she is living apart from him without any sufficient reason and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance with an application for interim maintenance, which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 30.07.2025 fixing the amount of Rs.4000/- as interim maintenance. He further submitted that the revisionist has no any income but he is working in motor garage and get Rs.5000/- per month as salary. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 (wife) is also graduate and by giving tuition, she makes some earning and is able to maintain herself, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court vide order dated 30.07.2025. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dipendra Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aditya Yadav, G.A., Sandeep Kumar Kushwaha, Shivam Yadav Ranjeet Maurya .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that due to neglect on the part of the revisionist, the opposite party no.2 is living apart from him. The amount so fixed by the learned trial court i.e. Rs.4000/- in favour of the wife, as maintenance cannot be said to be excessive. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that due to neglect on the part of the revisionist, opposite party no.2 is living apart from him in her maika and is unable to maintain herself. The revisionist earns Rs.5000/- by working in garage out of which Rs.4000/- as interim maintenance in favour of wife appears disproportionate, therefore, this amount is liable to be reduced to Rs.3000/- on the place of Rs.4000/- In considered opinion of this Court, the amount of maintenance Rs. 4,000/- as fixed by the learned trial court is excessive and is liable to be reduced to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance in favour of wife is reduced to Rs. 3,000/- per month on the place of Rs. 4,000/- from the date of application. September 8, 2025 Sanjeet CRLR No. 4640 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad