HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5245 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Preyansh Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Navin Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 10th July, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.5, Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 983 of 2018 (Smt. Kanchan Vs. Sandeep Patel), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, whereby the trial court while allowing the interim stay application filed in the instant application has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 on 10th day of each calendar month from the date of passing of the impugned order.The revisionist has also prayed by means of the instant application that considering the net income of opposite party no.2 the amount of interim maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court be enhanced and awarded from the date of filing of the instant application. 3. The main and sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court while passing the impugned order has not appreciated the factum of the case and wrongly considered the documentary and oral evidence led before it. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the amount of interim maintenance allowance be enhanced. 4. On the other-hand learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned interim order passed by the trial court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Preyansh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Navin Kumar Srivastava Smt Kanchan .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned interim order passed by the trial court, this Court finds that the impugned order is an interim order and the trial court only on the basis of prima facie case has passed the said order. 6. 6. This Court may also record that the instant application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending consideration before the trial court for final adjudication and the same shall be decided after oral as well as documentary evidence have to be led. During the course of trial the parties will have ample opportunity to file their respective evidence before the trial court. After filing of oral as well as documentary evidence and after trial proceedings, the trial court will decide as to whether the revisionist is entitled to get any maintenance allowance or nor and as to how much amount is the revisionist entitled and also from which period is she awarded maintenance allowance. 7. Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the interim order impugned passed by the trial court. 8. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 17, 2025 Sushil/- CRLR No. 5245 of 2024 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad