HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7876 of 2025 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the impugned interim order dated 15th October, 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 751 of 2025 (Smt. Priyanka & Others Vs. Ishan Sahu), under Section 144 B.N.S.S., whereby the trial court while allowing interim stay application being paper no. 11A filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3 in the above case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (son) towards monthly interim maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application i.e. total Rs. 12,000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stressed that it is admitted before the trial court by the opposite party no.2 that the revisionist has a small temporary shop where he repairs bicycles and somehow earns some money for his living. Learned counsel for the revisionist then submits that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court while awarding interim maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 to the total tune of Rs. 12,000/- which is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the next income of the revisionist and also not in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129. 4. On the above premise, learned counsel the revisionist submits that since Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rakesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jawahar Lal Dubey, Piyush Kumar Shukla Ishan Sahu .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the trial court has passed the impugned interim order without appreciating the evidence available on record, such order is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order and awarding Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 towards interim monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The amount of interim monthly maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant in any manner. 6. Besides the above, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist has a show-room of bicycles and at his shop, bicycles of customers also get repaired by his mechanics from which he earns handsome money by selling bicycles, therefore, he is fully capable to maintain his wife and son. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court finds that on one hand the opposite party no. claims that the revisionist has a show-room of bicycles and at his shop, bicycles of customers also get repaired by his mechanics from which he earns handsome money but on the other-hand, the revisionist claims that he has a small temporary shop where he repairs bicycles and somehow earns some money for his living the revisionist. Some photographs of a shop named as "Sahu Cycle" have been brought on record from page nos. 10 onwards of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist. From perusal of the same, it appears that the revisionist is running a cycle shop on which repairing works of cycles and selling of cycles have been done. However, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that in today's time when everyone has motorcycles, scooters and cars, it is difficult to sell cycles and repairing work is also very less. In this regard, the amount of total Rs. 12,000 per month awarded by the trial court awarded in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 is too much. The trial court has only relied upon the oral averment made by opposite party no.2 has awarded the aforesaid interim maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 which prima facie according to this Court is not correct in the eyes of law. 8. Keeping in mind the fact that at present the revisionist is not in job, this Court is of the prima faice view that the amount of interim monthly CRLR No. 7876 of 2025 2 maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned order to the total tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month seems to be excessive and is liable to be reduced. 9. Consequently, impugned interim order dated impugned interim order dated 15th October, 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 751 of 2025 (Smt. Priyanka & Others Vs. Ishan Sahu), under Section 144 B.N.S.S. is modified to the extent now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 6,000/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (son) in place of Rs. 4,000/- per month towards interim maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. 10. However, this Court may record that since the impugned order is an interim order passed on the interim stay application filed in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which are pending consideration before the court below for final adjudication and the same shall be decided after oral as well as documentary evidence have to be led. During the course of trial the parties will have ample opportunity to file their respective evidence before the trial court. 11. In the interest of substantial justice, this Court also directs that the trial court shall conclude the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, if there is no other legal impediment. 12. It is also clarified that the arrears of amount towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the court below shall be calculated on the basis of amount of interim maintenance allowance as fixed by this Court herein above and after that if it is found that any amount has been paid in excess, the same shall be adjusted from the amount to be paid. 13. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. March 18, 2026 Sushil/- CRLR No. 7876 of 2025 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad