HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5496 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow this revision by setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras (hereinafter referred to as "learned court below") in Case No.582 of 2022 (Smt. Preeti Sharma vs. Giriraj Shukla) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and further be pleased to direct the learned court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras to consider and decide the application dated 05.08.2025 filed by revisionist and the maintenance application of the opposite party no.2 may kindly be dismissed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist who is living apart from him without any sufficient cause and filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by the learned trial court by order dated 06.08.2025 fixing the amount of Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of wife as maintenance from the date of application. Further submits that the opposite party no.2 is well qualified lady and gives tuition and is able to maintain herself by earning handsome income. He further submits that she was never subjected to ill-treatment either by the revisionist or by any member of his family. On the other hand, the opposite party no.2 is very cruel and she herself misbehaved with the revisionist and other members of his family and also started living apart from him. It is also submitted that he moved an application on 05.08.2025 before the learned trial court in relation to the details given by the opposite Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rateesh Singh, Shriprakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Giriraj Shukla .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) party no.2 in her affidavit regarding assets and liabilities that they were false but learned trial court did not dispose of the application first and decided the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court did not consider all these facts and fixed the amount of maintenance from the date of application on the place of order which is illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the learned trial court has passed the order on the basis of material on record. There is no any illegality in the order. 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 the order passed by the learned trial court dated 06.08.2025, it appears that the marriage between the revisionist and opposite party was solemnized on 18.06.2017. Till the year 2022 both of them lived as husband and wife and thereafter, on account of dispute between both the parties, she started living in her maika from the year 2022 and moved the application for maintenance. The revisionist has not paid any amount to her maintenance. The revisionist has already filed a case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act for divorce from the opposite party no.2. It also shows neglect on his part. Though the opposite party no.2/wife is M.Sc., B.T.C. and UPTET qualified but there is nothing on record to show that she has any income by giving tuition or by any other way. The revisionist himself is a teacher in primary school and gets salary Rs.71,615/- per month, his father is lekhpal who has been retired in the year 2019. The amount as fixed by the learned trial court Rs.15,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to the income of the husband/revisionist. As per the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 the amount of maintenance may be to the extent of 25% of the net salary of the husband and observations made in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324 the amount of maintenance is to be fixed from the date of application and not from the date of order. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 06.08.2025 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is concerned that he had filed an application on 05.08.2025 regarding wrongful information given by the wife in her affidavit for assets and liabilities, it is CRLR No. 5496 of 2025 2 apparent that the case was reserved by the learned trial court on 06.08.2025 for order, therefore, after hearing the argument of both the parties case was reserved and then application was moved by him, on the basis of which it cannot be said that learned trial court has not passed the order lawfully but committed error. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. September 16, 2025 Ashok Gupta CRLR No. 5496 of 2025 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad