Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61272 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4281 of 2024 Revisionist :- Jitendra Bhadauriya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Beerendra Pratap Singh,Indra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party 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 revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 710/12/2022 (Smt. Pratibha Singh Vs. Jitendra Bhadauriya) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad and furthermore pray to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order during the pendency of present criminal revision. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the revisionist is husband of opposite party no. 2. She is well educated lady and B.A.L.L.B and M.B.A. She works as an Advocate with his father in the District Court Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh. The revisionist always tried to keep her happily and never subjected her to physical or mental harassment. The revisionist is in service in Air Force and most of the time he remains on his duty but on vacations he comes to his house. The opposite party does not want to live in the house of the revisionist and always misbehaves and makes false and obscene allegations against the revisionist and other members of his family. She left his house and went to live separate from him in the house of her father and works as an Advocate in the District Court where her father, who works as an Advocate. She has filed several cases against the revisionist. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned court which was decided illegally by order dated 23.07.2024 while fixing the amount of Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance which is in excess. The revisionist gets the salary from his department i.e. Rs. 53,345/- per month. As per observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, the maintenance amount can be fixed up to the extent of 25 % of net salary of the husband in favour of wife. In this way, the amount so fixed by the learned trial court is more than the proportion already fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In addition to this, the liabilities of the husband which are also to be considered by the Court while deciding the amount of maintenance but the learned trial court did not consider all these facts and fixed the amount Rs. 15,000/- that is more than 25% of the salary, therefore, request to set it aside and reduce the amount. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the wife is living separate from the husband with reasonable excuse due to neglect on husband's part. She lives in her Maika with her father but she did not work as an Advocate in the District Court though she is law graduate. She also does not work anywhere for earning the livelihood. The amount fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be inappropriate to the income of the husband or excessive or more than the status of the wife as per her education. 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 material on record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 23.07.2024, the salary of the husband and the amount fixed by the learned trial court, it appears that the revisionist/husband gets the salary Rs. 53,345/- per month and the amount of maintenance Rs. 15,000/- is more than 25% of the net salary, therefore, the amount so fixed by the learned trial court is likely to be reduced as per the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (Supra), Rajnesh Versus Neha (Supra) and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (Supra). Accordingly, the amount of maintenance Rs. 15,000/- per month is reduced to the extent of Rs. 13,000/- per month from the date of application. This criminal revision is allowed modifying the order dated 23.07.2024 regarding the amount of maintenance from Rs. 15,000/- per month to Rs. 13000/- per month from the date of application. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad