HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5578 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 & 3 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.8.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Bareilly in Restoration Case No. 1475 of 2023(Vinay Kumar vs. Shubhi Yadav and another) filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are minor daughters and they are living with maternal grandmother, since wife of the revisionist died. He further submits that an application for their maintenance was moved on the part of maternal grandmother which was allowed ex- parte by the learned Trial Court on 22.6.2023, against which the revisionist filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for recall and it was recalled vide order dated 1.8.2025 for cost of Rs.30,000/-, and Rs.7000/- per month each to opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 was also fixed for interim maintenance from the date of application. He further submits that the revisionist is willing to keep his children, regarding which a case under Guardian and Wards Act is also pending before the Court concerned. He is also ready to make payment of maintenance to the children but the amount fixed by the learned trial Court is excessive, therefore requests to reduce the amount and to divide the arrears of amount into easy installments. 4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the revisionist. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA, perusal of the record and order dated 1.8.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, admittedly, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are minor daughters of the revisionist and those are living with 'Nani' who has filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed ex-parte; and the ex-parte order was recalled on 1.8.2025 for cost of Rs.30,000/- by the learned Trial Court. There appears no Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinay Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Court on the application filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. 6. So far as fixing of amount as interim maintenance Rs.7000/- per month for each child is concerned, it cannot be said to be illegal or excessive. Since the revisionist has not paid any amount for their maintenance, therefore, it is to be paid from the date of application till the disposal of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revisionist is also working in the Irrigation Department, so it can also not be said that he is not in a position to make payment of aforesaid amount. Thus, there appears no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 1.8.2025 and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. So far as arrears of amount from the date of application is concerned, it shall be paid by the revisionist in twelve equal installments payable month to month with the current amount of interim maintenance. 8. The revision is disposed of accordingly. September 24, 2025 P.P. CRLR No. 5578 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad