Ajay Singh State Of Up And 2 Others v. Revisionist

As learned counsel for the revisionist, who is also counsel for opposite party no. 2 in the connected matter, is not present, this Court proceeds to decide the present revision after hearing learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and upon perusal of the record.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set aside the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Maintenance Case No. 454 of 2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, whereby a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance in favour of opposite party no. 2 (wife) from the date of the application, i.e., 28.08.2020.

The revisionist contends that the amount of Rs. 7,000/- per 2 CRLR No. 941 of 2024 month awarded by the learned Trial Court is excessive and disproportionate to his income. It is stated that the revisionist is employed in a private sports company with a monthly salary of about Rs. 30,000/- and has no other source of income. He also has to maintain his aged parents and bear his own expenses; therefore, the amount awarded by the learned Trial Court is beyond his financial means and deserves reduction.

On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the revisionist and supported the order of the learned Trial Court, submitting that the maintenance amount awarded is just and reasonable and in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324], Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (Nee Nandy) [AIR 2017 SC 2383], and Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari [(1970) 3 SCC 129].

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A., and upon perusal of the record and the order of the learned Trial Court, it is an admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. It is also admitted that the revisionist is employed in a private sports company and earns approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. In Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ordinarily maintenance may range up to 25% of the husband’s net income, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Applying the said principle, 25% of Rs. 30,000/- comes to Rs. 7,500/- per month, which is nearly equal to the sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month awarded by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the amount fixed by the Trial Court is reasonable, proportionate, and consistent with the legal parameters. Being a revisional court, this Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its findings for those of the Trial Court unless such findings are shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, there appears to be no 3 CRLR No. 941 of 2024 illegality or impropriety in the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court warranting interference.

Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

It is, however, observed that in case there is any substantial change in the income or financial circumstances of either party in future, it shall be open for them to move an appropriate application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court for modification of the maintenance order in accordance with law. November 3, 2025 (Madan Pal Singh,J.)