Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37203 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 679 of 2025 Revisionist :- Subhodeep Biswas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Harish Chandra,Amar Singh,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. Vakalatmama filed by Shri Siddhant Kumar, Shri Ram Kumar Singh and Shri Vishwas Shukla, Advocates filed on behalf of respondent no.2 is taken on record. 2. Heard, Shri Harish Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 raised a preliminary objection that this revision is not maintainable for the reasons that the revision has been filed against the order of interim maintenance dated 29.04.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.485 of 2024, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the order dated 28.05.2025 passed on an application under Section 146(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for recall of the order dated 29.04.2025, which has still not been finally decided and only an interlocutory order has been passed for depositing the amount of interim maintenance and two remedies can not be availed against the order dated 29.04.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the applicant has moved an application under Section 146 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for modification of the order dated 29.04.2025 for reducing the amount of maintenance but inadvertently it has been mentioned that the order dated 29.04.2025 may be recalled. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it is apparent that the order dated 29.04.2025 by which the interim maintenance has been allowed after affording opportunity to the parties and considering their respective contentions. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application under Section 146 (1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for recall of the order dated 29.04.2025 and its modification for altering the amount of maintenance from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.4,000/- on account of a circumstance, which is of prior to 29.04.2025. The Family Court, by means of the order dated 28.05.2025, has only directed that after payment of the amount of interim maintenance by the respondent i.e. the revisionist, the court will hear on the application for recall, failing which the recovery warrant will be issued. Thus, the order dated 28.05.2025 is only an interlocutory order and as settled the revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order. 6. So far as the order dated 29.04.2025 is concerned, an application for recall of the said order and thereafter modification of the amount of interim maintenance is pending, therefore, the revisionist can not challenged said order as two remedies can not be availed simultaneously against one and the same order. Thus, the revision is not maintainable. 7. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. ...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Haseen U. Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench