HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4939 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to allow this revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No. 191 of 2024 (Smt. Sheeba Vs. Danish), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Meerut. 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 minor child of the revisionist. The marriage was performed in the year 2019 and from the year 2023 she is living apart from him without any sufficient cause and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance with an application for interim maintenance which was allowed by order dated 29.07.2025 fixing the amount of interim maintenance Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of minor child from the date of application. Further submitted that the opposite party no. 2/wife is highly educated lady, takes tuition and makes handsome income. She is able to maintain herself even though she has not revealed her income in the affidavit filed by herself. On the other hand, the revisionist is an unemployed person and has no any source of income. He does not have any such property to earn income as narrated by the wife/opposite party no. 2 in her application. The amount so fixed by the learned trial court is excessive and beyond his paying capacity and also fixed the amount from the date of application Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Danish @ Mohammad Danish .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) which is illegal, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and allow the revision and it be fixed from the date of order on the place of date of application and also to divide the amount of arrears of maintenance in equal installments for making payment easy. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that admittedly the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are wife and minor child of the revisionist and marriage was performed in the year 2019 and from the year 2023, the opposite party no. 2 is living apart from him and no any amount for maintenance of her and minor child is being given by the the revisionist. She was subjected to demand of Rs. 50 lac and one scorpio car and due to non- fulfillment of demand, she was subjected to misbehave and torture. She also made statement that the revisionist was living in Kenya and working there in exhibition whereas the revisionist has also admitted this fact in his examination that he was working in Kenya in exhibition with his brother-in- law but due to the litigation between husband and wife, he was compelled to come back to India and now he is unemployed. There is no material to show that the opposite party no. 2 is earning any income by giving tuition to the students or by teaching in any school. She has liability of herself and also the minor child. The revisionist himself has filed a case for divorce against the wife and also a case under Guardian and Wards Act for transferring the custody of his child in his favour. Since the revisionist being able bodied person is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor child who has no any independent source of income for their maintenance. The amount of maintenance Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of minor child as fixed by learned trial court cannot be said to more than sufficient or beyond his paying capacity. As per observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, the amount of maintenance to be awarded from the date of application not from the date of order. Thus, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance from the date of application to the date of order is concerned, it may be divided into equal 12 monthly CRLR No. 4939 of 2025 2 installments, those will be paid with current amount of maintenance month to month. Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of at the admission stage. September 1, 2025 Anurag Singh CRLR No. 4939 of 2025 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad