HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 858 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Case is called out in the revised list. No one appears for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 despite the fact that notice has been served upon opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as per office report dated 2nd December, 2024. 2. Heard Ms. Shaheen Bano, the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record. 3 . The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the interim order dated 22nd December, 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2023 (Smt. Parveen & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another) and also the interim order dated 9th February, 2023 passed by the trial court in Complaint Case No. 734 of 2022 (Parveen Vs. Mohd. Irshad) under Section 23 of Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "D.V. Act"), Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that initially the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, who are wife and son of the revisionist, filed a complaint case under Section 12 of D.V. Act, which was registered Complaint Case No. 734 of 2022 in which the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Court No. 41, Shahjahanpur while entertaining the interim stay application filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in the said proceedings, has passed an order dated 9th February, 2022 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month each to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 towards interim maintenance allowance. Learned counsel for hte revisionist further submits that feeling aggrieved by the said order, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed Appeal No. 57 of 2023 and the appellate court while setting aside the order of the trial court dated 9th February, 2023 has enhanced the interim maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month each from Rs. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shaheen Bano, Shahnawaz Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd Irshad .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 1,000/- per month each. It is against these two orders that the present criminal revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the the revisionist submits that since the revisionist has constructed a house and registered it in the name of the opposite party no.2, from which, she takes Rs 5,000/- as rent every month, hence, she is not entitled to get any interim maintenance allowance from the revisionist and the revisionist is not under legal obligation pay the said interim maintenance allowance. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that amount of interim maintenance allowance as awarded by the appellate court is excessive and exhorbitant. 6 . On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that both the courts below while passing the impugned interim orders have not appreciated the factum of the case, therefore, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other-hand learned A.G.A. has opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned interim orders passed by the appellate court and the trial court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned interim orders passed by the appellate court and the trial court, this Court finds that the impugned orders are an interim orders and the appellate court as well as the trial court only on the basis of prima facie case have passed the said orders. 9. Keeping in view the present inflation, scenario, cost of living, food, clothing, medical expenses etc., this Court is of the prima facie view that the amount of interim monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the appellate court under the impugned orderto the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month each in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 cannot be said to be excessive, exorbitant and illegal. 10. This Court may also record that the instant application filed by the revisionist under Section 12 D.V. Act is pending consideration before the trial court 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. After filing of oral as well as documentary evidence and after trial proceedings, the trial court will decide as to whether the revisionist is entitled to get any maintenance allowance or not and as to how much amount is the revisionist CRLR No. 858 of 2024 2 entitled and also from which period is she awarded maintenance allowance along with other issues. 11. Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the interim order impugned passed by the trial court. 12. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. It is clarified that the trial court while deciding the instant proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act shall not influence by any observations made herein above by this Court, which are based on prima facie view, in any manner. October 17, 2025 Sushil/- CRLR No. 858 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad