HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7307 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Amrit Shanker Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Irshad Saifi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the material available on record. 2. Revisionist Akash Nayak has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Revision challenging the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 466 of 2022, Shikha v. Akash Nayak, whereby the Trial Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no. 2 and ordered the revisionist to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of filing of the application. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present Criminal Revision has been filed, inter alia, on the grounds that the impugned order has been passed without due application of judicial mind and merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further contended that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily, without due consideration of the material available on record. The Trial Court, without properly considering the income of opposite party no. 2, has erroneously determined the quantum of maintenance and thereby committed an error of law. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the present Criminal Revision be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was earning only Rs. 10,000/- per month by working at a shop owned by his joint family. It is pointed out that, as recorded in the judgment of the Trial Court at page 13 of the paper book, the revisionist deposed that his brother, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amrit Shanker Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Irshad Saifi Akash Nayak .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Upendra Nayak, works in the said shop along with their father and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the revisionist was also earning a similar amount from the said business. However, on account of several criminal and matrimonial cases instituted against the revisionist and his family members, his father ousted him from the family shop and business. At present, the revisionist is residing with his grandfather at Agra and assisting him in agricultural activities. It is submitted that the revisionist is presently sustaining himself with the support and blessings of his grandfather. It is, thus, contended that, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present Criminal Revision deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. representing the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment and order. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that though the revisionist, in his statement, disclosed the income of his brother but did not disclose his own income, either in the affidavit filed in compliance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another or in his examination-in-chief or cross- examination. It is further submitted that the revisionist has also not denied that he is an income-tax assessee, which indicates that he has taxable income. Learned counsel further submitted that, even under the earlier income-tax regime, a person having annual income upto 2,50,000/-, was not taxable, whereas under the prevailing income-tax regime, an individual having income up to Rs. 12 lakhs per annum may, subject to the applicable provisions and rebates, have no tax liability. It is, therefore, contended that the Trial Court, after considering the material available on record and the conduct of the revisionist in not disclosing his income, rightly assessed his income and fixed the quantum of maintenance at Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is thus contended that, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 6. When confronted with above, learned counsel for the revisionist could not overcome the same. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. The object of maintenance is to prevent destitution and ensure that the dependent spouse and children are able to live with dignity. From a careful examination of the impugned order, it transpires that the Trial Court has considered the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced by CRLR No. 7307 of 2025 2 them and the attending circumstances before determining the income of the revisionist and fixing the quantum of maintenance. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or perverse. No jurisdictional error or material irregularity has been pointed out in the impugned order. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on the material available on record as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court and do not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This submissions urged by the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 clearly borne out from the record. The revisionist has tried to conceal his income by non disclosure his income. Therefore, he is not entitled for any relief from this Court in the present matter. The present Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is, accordingly, dismissed. September 18, 2026 Brijesh Maurya CRLR No. 7307 of 2025 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad