HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 600 of 2019 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J. 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist - Faruq Khan with the prayer to set aside the order dated 8.1.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 941 of 2017 (Smt. Gulista and another vs. Faruq Khan)), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Usait, District Budaun whereby the learned Trial Court directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 - wife and Rs. 1000/- per month to the opposite party no.3-son from the date of order. 2. Heard Sri Tahir Husain Farooqui, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Kahkashan Bano, Advocate holding brief for Shri Ikram Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is a labourer and earns a meager amount. Though the revenue records were produced by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court but the owner of the maximum land is his father and mother. The revisionist earns about Rs.4000/- - Rs. 5,000/- per month and sometimes he does not earn anything at all, making it extremely difficult for him to meet even his basic livelihood Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ravi Shankar Tripathi, Tahir Husain Farooqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ikram Ahmad Faruq Khan .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. .....Opposite Party(s) expenses. It is also submitted that the revisionist is living separately from his other family members. He is not in a position to give such huge amount of maintenance to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the court concerned has wrongly assessed the income of the revisionist while passing the impugned order. Hence, the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court to the wife may be reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. 4. Though the learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and contended that the revisionist earns a handsome income and he is the owner of 100 bighas of land. Considering the present inflation, the amount awarded by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be excessive or beyond the capacity of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. However, Ms. Kahkashan Bano, Advocate holding brief for Shri Ikram Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 states that if the Court reduces the maintenance amount from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-, she has no objection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and the record of the case including the impugned order, it is an admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. As regards the income of the revisionist, it is admitted that he is a labourer and farmer and his income is uncertain. In the absence of any reliable material showing a fixed or stable income, and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumar, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the amount of maintenance must be reasonable CRLR No. 600 of 2019 2 and proportionate to the paying capacity of the husband. The learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has also submitted that if the Court reduces the maintenance amount, she has no objection. 6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded to opposite party no. 2 from the date of the judgment is not commensurate with the uncertain and fluctuating income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife, but the amount of maintenance must be reasonable and within his financial capacity. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court appears to be on hire side to some extent and deserves to be modified. Accordingly, the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 - wife from the date of the judgment. The maintenance amount awarded to the opposite party no.3-son is not interfered with. 7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. The amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of the judgment. October 1, 2026 safi CRLR No. 600 of 2019 3 (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad