Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38870 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 746 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rajendar Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhil Kumar Singh,Gyanendra Pratap Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. This revision has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 27.05.2025 passed in Case No.225/2019, Computerized Registration No.229/2019(Pushpa Yadav versus Rajendra Kumar Yadav) by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya. The sole ground advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the respondent no.2 is residing with the revisionist in the same house, even then, though the court has earlier allowed the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month but it has been enhanced to Rs.7000/- per month from the date of order, which could not have been done. Learned AGA opposed the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist and submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed in accordance with law because the respondent no.2 is residing in the same house on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties and interim maintenance was allowed in the year 2019 and now it is 2025,therefore the maintenance has rightly been fixed from the date of order. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is apparent that the grounds taken by the revisionist are not sustainable for the reasons that the respondent no.2 is residing in the same house on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties, as recorded in paragraph 13 of the order itself and except interim maintenance nothing was being paid by the revisionist. The interim maintenance appears to was fixed in the year 2019 at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month, which has been fixed at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month from the date of judgment i.e. 27.05.2025. This Court is of the view that the same has rightly been passed as about 6 years has passed since granting of the interim maintenance, looking to the inflation. It is also noticed that the revisionist has not paid all the interim maintenance to the respondent no.2, therefore, the family court has provided that he will pay difference of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month from 17.06.2019. While considering the status of the revisionist, the court has recorded that the revisionist is owner of four trucks and he has sufficient agricultural land and as per the account details and the account statement filed by the revisionist he has sufficient earning. In view of above the impugned order has rightly and in accordance with law has been passed after considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record. This Court is of the view that the impugned order has rightly been passed in accordance with law, which does not require any interference by this Court. Dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Akanksha Sri/- Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench