Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84304 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6234 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sumit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mayank Shekhar Singh,Shalini Singh,Yadvendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikrant Rana Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Ms. Shalini Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 2. The instant revision has been filed challenging the order dated 19.09.2024 whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut has allowed application for interim maintenance and has directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month from the date of application fixing the date for final disposal of the proceedings. 3. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Principal Judge has not carefully perused the record of the proceedings and has not given weightage to the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant to the effect that though he was earlier working as Civil Engineer, he has lost his job and was undergoing medical treatment whereas opposite party No.2 is well qualified and was working as a teacher. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that the applicant failed to ensure compliance of the mandatory requirements as enumerated in the celebrated judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and further considering the material placed before the Court, even a sum of Rs.5000/- as interim maintenance is on a lower side. It is further urged that even if it is found that wife is earning, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that such earning, in itself, cannot be a ground for denying maintenance. He further submits that since the proceedings are still pending before the court concerned, no interference should be made in the order impugned. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that parties were at contest on the question of earnings. However, whatever material was placed before the learned Principal Judge on the plea of interim maintenance, considering the fact that the applicant being Civil Engineer and there being income from agricultural land also, this Court is of the view that award of Rs.5000/- per month as interim maintenance cannot be said to be unjustified. 6. Since proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are still pending and have to be decided on the basis of evidence on record in the light of the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, at this stage, it cannot be said that order impugned suffers from any illegality. 7. Having found no error in the award of interim maintenance, the revision is dismissed. 8. The applicant shall deposit the entire amount as per impugned order within a period of one month, failing which, he shall not be allowed to participate in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the same shall be decided ex-parte. He will also continue to deposit the said amount till final disposal of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., failing which, his right to participate in the proceedings shall stand closed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad