##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A F R Pinki Verma And Another .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Diwas Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhole Ram, G.A.

Court No. - 83 HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

1. Heard Sri Diwas Verma, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Bhole Ram, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the instant criminal revision has been preferred with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause. The relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the revision is delineated below:-

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in case no. 149 of 2021 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Pinky Verma Vs. Saurabh @ Brij) to the extent whereby the learned court below has only awarded monthly allowance at the rate of Rs 19000/-per month instead of awarding monthly allowance at the rate of Rs. 40000/- per month as claimed by the revisionist-wife against the husband- opposite party no. 2 and consequently this Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct: -

a) That the maintenance to the tune of Rs 40000/- per month be paid to the revisionist wife and her minor child by the opposite party no.2 (husband)

b) That the cost of litigation as may be quantified by this Hon'ble court may be paid to the revisionist-wife Otherwise the revisionist shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

And/or to pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that opposite party no.2 is working as Window Operator in Indian Bank, District Unnao. He further submits that the maintenance amount granted vide impugned order dated 22.12.2025 is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari, 1970 (3) SCC 129 and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, AIR 2017 SC 2383: (2017) 14 SCC 200, wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed that 25% of the husband's salary would be just and proper towards maintenance. The relevant paragraph of the judgment passed in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar (supra) is delineated below :-

"15. The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 2-2-2015 [Rita Dey Chaudhury v. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury, 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 10447] awarding a maintenance of Rs 16,000 to the respondent wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs 63,842 after deduction of Rs 24,000 on account of GPF and Rs 12,000 towards income tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs 95,527. Following Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari [Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129], in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs 95,000 per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintena