Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141240 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5137 of 2024 Revisionist :- Rameshwar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anand Kumar Tiwari,Ved Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Bhushan Singh Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 in maintenance case no. 705 of 2018 (Smt. Preeti Maurya vs. Rameshwar Singh) U/s 125 Cr.P.C. passed by Principal Judge, Family Court Ghazipur directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as interim maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 06.09.2021. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the revisionist on 07.05.2017. Just after the marriage, the relationship between the husband and wife i.e. revisionist and opposite party no.2 became strained and incompatible. Consequently, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Case No.705 of 2018 (Smt. Preeti Maurya vs. Rameshwar Singh) District Ghazipur on which the learned trial court vide order dated 07.09.2024 has awarded monthly interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 5000/- per month. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a Group D employee in Indian Air Force. Just after the marriage, for the reason best known to opposite party no.2 the relationship between the revisionist and his wife (opposite party no.2) become strained due to which she left his house and is living at her parental house. It is further submitted that before the court below the revisionist has filed his reply and in paragraph no.27 of the said reply, it has been specifically stated that the opposite party no.2 is not consummate the marriage and when the revisionist tried to establish physical relationship with her, she denied and the trial court without considering this fact has passed the impugned order awarding interim maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 opposed the submissions made by counsel for the revisionist and contended that before awarding the interim maintenance allowance under the impugned order, full opportunity was given to the revisionist to adduce his evidence before the learned trial court and after considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. He, therefore, submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present criminal revision. 7. From the perusal of the records, this Court is of the opinion that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., only interim maintenance allowance has been awarded to opposite party no.2 on the basis of prima facie opinion by the trial court. As such, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned. Insofar as the allegation, which has been made by the revisionist through his reply filed before the trial Court, is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said allegation cannot be adjudicated by the trial court at the stage when it considered the interim maintenance application of opposite party no.2. Such allegation can be decided by the trial court after taking evidence and giving opportunity of cross examination to both the parties. 8. Accordingly, no interference is required at this stage against the order impugned. 9. The present criminal revision is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad