Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43930 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 806 of 2025 Revisionist :- Nandram @ Nandram Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vyas Narayan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. Heard Sri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 04.07.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.488/2020(Shekhar Verma versus Nandram Verma) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri., by means of which the maintenance has been allowed to the respondent no.2 at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month from the date of application and Rs.6000/- per month from the date of order till his attaining the age of majority. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the interim maintenance was awarded at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and the revisionist has regularly paid the interim maintenance but without considering it the maintenance has been fixed from the date of application as Rs.3000 per month, which is in excess of the interim maintenance fixed by the family court as maintenance. Thus the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned AGA opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that fixing of interim maintenance does not bar fixing of the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is to be fixed from the date of application. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material placed on record of this revision. Sub section 2 of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides that the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be. The family court, after relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rajneesh versus Neha; 2021 2 SCC 324 and judgment and order dated 04.08.2023 passed in Matters under Article 227 No.8162/2013; Smt. Parul Tyagi versus Gaurav Tyagi has held that it is justifiable and justified to allow the maintenance from the date of application. Accordingly, allowed Rs.3000/- per month from the date of application and Rs.6000/- per month from the date of order till attaining the age of majority by respondent no.2. In view of above, this Court does not find illegality or error in the amount of maintenance allowed by the family court. Nothing could also be pointed out contrary to the findings recorded by the court in regard to allowing the maintenance in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. So far as the plea that the interim maintenance was allowed only at the rate of 2000/- per month, which has been enhanced to Rs.3000/- per month is concerned, allowing the interim maintenance does not bar fixing of the amount of maintenance while deciding it because the said amount was only as an interim measure. Thus this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order, which may call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. Order Date :- 30.7.2025 Akanksha Sri/- Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench