HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1687 of 2026 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Maintenance Case No. 11 of 2024 (Smt. Ayasha Khan Vs Arshad Khan) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station – Madhotanda, District – Pilibhit; by which the Court has allowed maintenance of Rs. 9500/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of filing of the application. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that admittedly the revisionist has got job on compassionate ground on the death of his father as a Peon in the Composite School, Kalyanpur, Naugwan Vikas Kshetra Marouri, Pilibhit. Learned counsel has further submitted that total monthly income of the revisionist is Rs. 36,350/-, but he has also submitted that the revisionist has to look after his entire family including four unmarried dependent brothers and sister and ailing mother. As such, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the court below in favour of opposite party no. 2 (wife) Rs. 9500/- per month, is excessive and exorbitant and is not in commensurate with the income of the revisionist. Since the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manvendra Singh, Pinki Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arshad Khan .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) opposite party no. 2 is an educated lady and she has B.Ed. Degree, teaches in a School and earns Rs. 12000/- per month, which is sufficient to maintain herself. This material fact was not considered by the trial court while granting maintenance to opposite party no. 2. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 6. On considering the facts and arguments of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and order passed by the Court below, it appears that admittedly, opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. There is nothing on record to show the income of opposite party no. 2. Therefore, she is unable to maintain herself. By the order of the family Court, it is evident that opposite party no. 2 is living at her parental house, due to neglect and ill treatment by her husband and his family. The finding recorded by the trial court is finding of fact and this Court being revisional Court, may not re-appreciate the evidence to return its own finding unless the finding recorded by the trial Court is perverse and against the facts of law. 7. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, it has been alleged by opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist is working in a School, in which he got a job on compassionate ground on the death of his father. She has annexed the copy of pay slip of the revisionist before the trial Court, by which it is clear that his net salary is Rs. 36,500/- per month. She further alleged that he earns additional income through property dealing, but there is no evidence and record to establish this fact. However, the revisionist, has claimed that he has to maintain his four younger unmarried brothers, one sister and ailing mother, but neither any medical report nor any supporting document with regard to his ailing mother before the trial Court has been annexed. Further the mother of the revisionist also gets monthly pension. Therefore, the Court presumed that the revisionist/husband is getting sufficient salary to maintain his family. Therefore, the Court held that the husband/revisionist cannot shirk his CRLR No. 1687 of 2026 2 pious obligation to maintain his wife. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the revisionist’s net salary is Rs. 36,500/- per month and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (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, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband. 9. In the present case, the maintenance allowance awarded by the Court below of Rs. 9,500/- per month to opposite party no. 2 cannot be said to be excessive, which is already on lower side, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed. April 1, 2026 S.K.S. CRLR No. 1687 of 2026 3 (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad