Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93376 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38305 of 2024 Applicant :- Sharad Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material available on record. 2. The applicant, by means of the present application, has challenged the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Case No. 1079 of 2023, whereby an interim maintenance of Rs. 70,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 30,000/- to opposite party no. 3) has been awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that the applicant and opposite party no. 2 were married on 19.02.2009 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, a child named Pranjal was born, who is currently about 9 years old and is in the custody of his mother (opposite party no. 2). Matrimonial discord arose between the parties, allegedly due to the unwillingness of opposite party no. 2 to reside with the applicant’s parents. Subsequently, opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court at Gautam Budh Nagar, levelling certain allegations against the applicant, which he contends were false and made solely to exert pressure. The said application was dismissed by the trial court on 04.10.2024 upon receipt of a police report indicating that the dispute was of a domestic nature. 4. In the meantime, on 20.12.2023, the applicant filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that proceeding, opposite party no. 2 appeared and filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance. She also filed a separate application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 20.12.2023, claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. In the said proceeding, the impugned interim order was passed on 30.08.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court erred in awarding interim maintenance without determining the actual income of either party. He points out that the court itself observed concealment of income by both parties, and yet proceeded to fix an arbitrary sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 30,000/- to opposite party no. 3) as interim maintenance. It is further submitted that the applicant has limited means and is burdened with the medical expenses of his aged and ailing parents, and hence, is not in a financial position to comply with the impugned order. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the impugned order is an interlocutory order passed after due consideration of the materials available on record, including income tax returns. He further submits that the applicant has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Family Court to seek variation or modification of the said order, if so advised. 7. To buttress his argument, the learned A.G.A. placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 2875, wherein the Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was enacted to ensure that a woman, who has left or has been thrown out of her matrimonial home, can sustain herself and her children. The Court further held that the concept of sustenance does not merely mean "to lead the life of an animal", but rather that the wife is entitled in law to lead a life in a manner similar to that which she would have lived in the house of her husband. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, including the impugned order dated 30.08.2024, this Court finds that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar has considered all relevant aspects of the case, including the financial condition of both parties and the documents submitted by them. The interim maintenance awarded appears to be based on a reasoned analysis and cannot be said to be either arbitrary or passed without application of judicial mind. The amount granted is in the nature of subsistence allowance to the wife and the minor child, and appears reasonable and justified in the circumstances of the case. 9. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad