Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84865 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4959 of 2024 Revisionist :- Kamal Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kirtikar Pande Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vikas Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Sri Kirtikar Pande, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 29.07.2024 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed by the opposite party no.2 and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as monthly maintenance amount w.e.f. the date of filing of the application i.e. 11.08.2022. 3. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently submitted that the learned Principal Judge has misread the documentary evidence on record, particularly with regard to the income of the applicant. Referring to the findings recorded in paragraph nos.12 & 13 of the order impugned and referring certain documents, submission has been made that the figures mentioned in paragraph 12 are in fact ten times over and above the income of the applicant and there is apparent perversity in the order. It is further urged that, in so far ITR is concerned, the Court has taken into consideration the same pertaining to Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2023-24, whereas the applicant had resigned from the job on 29.08.2022 and is jobless now. It is further urged that List-32Kha/1 was copy of ITR pertaining to the Assessment Year 2024-25 reflecting zero income of the applicant, despite the same, huge sum has been awarded as maintenance taking into consideration the income of the family of the applicant which could not have been done. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the applicant filed divorce proceedings which were dismissed by the Family Court against which an appeal has been filed which is pending before this Court. Further, a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the wife, which was allowed and against the said order also, an appeal has been filed by the applicant which is pending. 5. As regards income of the applicant, submission has been made that the ITRs have been correctly perused and the entire confusion created by the applicant is based upon misreading of income, that is to say, that though the applicant is referring to monthly income, the Court has taken into consideration the annual income. Further, despite huge salary earned by the applicant, who is posted as a Software Engineer in a reputed company, the Court has rightly treated the income as Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac) per month. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no dispute regarding date of marriage i.e. 25.04.2021 and at that time, the applicant was working as a Software Engineer. The ITR pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21 reflected his annual income as Rs.17,19,100/- and after deductions, receivables were Rs.14,69,100/-. The other ITR pertaining to Assessment Year 2023-24 reflected his annual income as 18,22,561/. 7. Though it is true that a document demonstrating leaving of the job dated 22.08.2022 was filed by the applicant, the Family Court has considered the same and arrived at a conclusion that the applicant being a software engineer, despite showing his income as nil for the Assessment Year 2024-25, his monthly income can be determined as Rs.1 Lac per month. The said consideration is based upon successive ITRs brought on record and the status of the applicant. Though learned counsel for the applicant may be correct in his submissions that income of other family members could not be considered while computing the maintenance amount, this Court finds that the basis of passing of the impugned order is not income of the family members, rather the discussion made by the learned Judge is based upon entire material placed before him. Learned Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the applicant has failed to prove his actual income before the court and estimating the monthly income of Rs. 1 lac, based upon ITRs, cannot be said to be an erroneous approach. 8. Having heard the submissions made and after critically going through the entire material annexed with the revision, this Court does not find any error in determination of monthly income based upon qualification, status and living standard of the applicant and, therefore, award of monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month, cannot be said to be erroneous, particularly when the divorce proceedings were dismissed and no question for consideration of permanent alimony ever arose. 9. Consequently, having found no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the order impugned, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned. 10. Revision has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. The amount of maintenance lying in arrears up-to-date shall be computed by the opposite party no.2 and appropriate application shall be moved before the Principal Judge, Family Court for realisation of the amount. 12. In case, such an application is moved, the same shall be dealt with expeditiously in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 P Kesari Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad