Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71021 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4341 of 2024 Revisionist :- Dau Dayal Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Dwivedi,Ram Ashrey Kashyap,Shiv Babu Dubey,Vimal Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shekhar Chaudhary Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in Case No.417 of 2019 (Smt. Sonal Agrawal and another vs. Dau Dayal Agrawal) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the application was allowed and amount of maintenance Rs.5000/- in favour of wife and Rs.7500/- in favour of son was fixed from the date of application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party no.3 is son of the revisionist. Further submitted that the wife is living separate from him with her son without any reasonable excuse. Learned trial court without determining the income of the revisionist fixed maintenance Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.7500/- per month in favour of minor child. The wife is also an earning lady makes income and files I.T.R. As per the I.T.R. relating to the assessment year 2015-16 total income of the opposite party no.2 was Rs.3,38,340/- out of which Rs.7180/- was deducted for income tax. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned trial court while fixing the amount of maintenance though wife being earning lady is not entitled for maintenance from the husband and also amount fixed in favour of child is more, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated 28.06.2024 and allow the revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment on the part of the revisionist that was the reason she started living separate from him alongwith her two minor children. One of them died during the period of Covid-19 and other is alive. She is maintaining the child and also bearing expenses on his education from her meagre income as no any amount is being given by the revisionist. The revisionist operates medical store in Diamond Market at Rambagh Chauraha and also works as doctor at Metro Hospital in Laparoscopy Centre. He neglected her that was the reason she is living separate from him. In this way, it cannot be said that she is living separate without any sufficient reason. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, his I.T.R.s relating to the assessment years 2014-15 to 2023-24 has also been filed showing his income Rs.4,54,540/-, Rs.5,12,000/-, Rs.6,34,360/-, Rs.7,00,000/-, Rs.4,09,570/-, Rs.4,02,960/- & Rs.4,89,860/- respectively average income Rs.5,00,000/- per year. He further contends that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, the 25% of the net income of the husband may be the amount of maintenance in favour of the wife but learned trial court after considering the income of the revisionist fixed the interim maintenance amount Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife that cannot be said to be disproportionate to the income of the revisionist. Likewise the child who was 12 years of age at the time of filing of the application in the year 2019 now he is about 17 years, the amount of his maintenance and education expenses may be more than Rs.7500/- per month though the learned trial court has fixed the amount Rs.7500/- per month only which is less than sufficient. This amount has been fixed by the learned trial court keeping the income of the wife into consideration also, therefore, the amount fixed for maintenance of both wife and the child cannot be said to be in excess but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, the income of the revisionist and also of the wife, the amount of maintenance Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife out of average income of the husband Rs.5,00,000/- per year cannot be said to be disproportionate and likewise the amount of Rs.7500/- per month in favour of minor child can also not be said to be excessive. Now the child is aged about 17 years and the revisionist's liability of making payment of maintenance towards that child will come to an end on his attaining the age of majority. The income of the wife has also been taken into consideration by the learned trial court and then the order in question has been passed. Due to neglect his wife is living separate from him alongwith her one child who is alive though unfortunately one child died during the period of Covid-19. In view of the maintenance and educational expenses of the child the amount of Rs.7500/- per month cannot be said to be more than sufficient. Thus, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad