HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4406 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Rahul Mehrotra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Narayan Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 09th July, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah in Misc. Case No. 06 of 2019 (Smt. Rakhi vs. Rahul), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Aliganj, District Etah whereby the trial court directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of application. 3. It is pertinent to mention that on previous date i.e. 02.09.2025 the instant matter was referred to mediation for settlement with a direction that the revisionist shall deposit Rs. 10,5000/- by way of demand draft but the same has not been deposited by the revisionist. Now the matter is heard and decided after hearing to both the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist stated that the revisionist has no regular source of income as he is doing work in the shop run by his brother from where he earns Rs.3000/- per month and the amount awarded by the trial court is excessive. Except this argument, no other argument regarding any other issue has been raised by the revisionist. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 contended that the revisionist is running a hardware shop and 28 bigha agricultural land in favour of revisionists's father and the revisionist are two brothers so half of the land comes with his share. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rahul Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Rahul .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. It is also submitted that opposite party no.2 being tortured and ill-treated by her in-laws and due to negligence on the part of the revisionist, the opposite party no.2 live separately. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by both the counsels appearing for both the parties and perused the record, it reflects from the judgment that the relations between the parties as husband and wife are not disputed. It reflects from the judgment while deciding the issue no.3, the learned trial court has categorically its finding regarding separate living. The reasoning of the trial court is based on the facts and the evidence adduced before it. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. There is also nothing on record whether the opposite party no.2 is able to maintain herself as she has any source of income. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129 has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. In that circumstance also, this Court is of the view that the revisionist being an able bodied person who cannot shirk from his pious liabilities of maintaining his legally wedded wife. However, there is no documentary evidence regarding the income of the revisionist and both the parties are taking their own stand where the revisionist submits that he assist his brother in his shop while the opposite party no.2 contended that the revisionist runs a hardware shop. There is no documentary evidence supporting the contention of opposite party no.2. 9. Hence keeping in view, the Court is constraint to assume that the revisionist is a labour then he would at least earn Rs. 600/- per day, meaning thereby that his total monthly income would be Rs.18,000/- per month. CRLR No. 4406 of 2024 2 10. Keeping in view of the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras), this court is of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance allowance fixed by the court below i.e. Rs. 5,000/- is commensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. 25% of the total monthly amount i.e. Rs. 18,000/- as quantified by this Court herein-above would be Rs.4,500/- that is almost close the amount awarded by the trial court which is not said to be excessive and this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 12. Since the revisionist is a labourer and has no other source of income, it would be too harsh for him to pay the same in one stroke. Therefore, this Court directs the revisionist to pay the total arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in 15 equal monthly installments. The first monthly installment shall commence from 05th October, 2025. September 25, 2025 C. MANI CRLR No. 4406 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad