HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5205 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Shivam Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Meva lal Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. Room No. 41, Shahjahanpur (Smt. Kajal @ Gyandevi Vs. Atal Bihari Mishra & Ors.) in Case No. 427 of 2021 filed under Sections 12,18,19,20,21,22 of Domestic Violence Act whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 6000/- to the opposite party no. 2. Against the said order, revisionist filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court being Appeal No. 16 of 2024 which has been rejected vide order dated 7.08.2024. 3.The sole contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist plies an e-rickshaw from which he somehow earns some money for his livelihood. It is further submitted that the revisionist is already paying maintenance allowances of Rs. 2500/- to the opposite party no.2 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court has awarded the interim maintenance of Rs. 6000/- per month in Domestic Violence is too excessive, which is not commensurate with his income. He has also the liabilities of his old parents and one brother, this fact was also not considered by the trial court while deciding the application u/s 12 of D.V. Act. Therefore, request to set aside the orders passed by learned trial court as well as appellate court and allow the present revision. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Deepankar Chaudhary, Shivam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Atal Bihari Mishra .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other-hand learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the above submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that the revisionist is a sales man in Private Company and earns handsome amount and the interim maintenance awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be excessive and there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the trial court as well as in the appellate court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under the revisional jurisdiction. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and after perusal of record and order passed by the trial court as well as appellate court, it reflects that at page no. 55 of the paper book, the application filed by opposite party no.2 before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC, Crime against Women on 25.2.2022, in which, she has admitted that she is residing with revisionist and the revisionist is maintaining her and children by plies E-rickshaw. Since this evidence of opposite party no.2 is best evidence before the Court. A E-rickshaw driver can earns Rs. 700/- to 800/- per day after deduction electricity charge etc, he would earn Rs.600/- per day and his monthly income of Rs. 18000/- per month but this fact has not been considered by the trial court as well as appellate court. However, still the application filed under Section 12 of D.V. Act is pending consideration for final adjudication before trial court but keeping in view of the income as well revisionist has already paying continue maintenance allowance of Rs. 2500/- under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Hence, the maintenance awarded by the court below seems to be excessive and deserves to be reduced. 6. Accordingly, order dated 7.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court in Appeal No. 16 of 2024 is hereby set aside and order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. Room No. 41, Shahjahanpur (Smt. Kajal @ Gyandevi Vs. Atal Bihari Mishra & Ors.) in Case No. 427 of 2021 filed under Sections 12,18,19,20,21,22 of Domestic Violence Act is deserved to be modified. 7. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the interim maintenance awarded by the trial court is reduced to Rs. 3500/- from Rs.6000/- per month during the pendency of the application filed under Sections 12,18,19,20,21,22 of Domestic Violence Act. CRLR No. 5205 of 2024 2 8. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon prayer made by the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court shall conclude and decide the application filed under Sections 12,18,19,20,21,22 of Domestic Violence Act in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferable within a period of four months from today. September 25, 2025 Akbar CRLR No. 5205 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad