HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7735 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant Surolia, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 even in the revised call despite service of notice as per office report dated 07.05.2026. 3. The present revision is being heard at the stage of admission. 4. The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 927 of 2022 (Smt. Indu Sisodia Vs. Gaurav Singh) passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by which the trial court had allowed the application 14Kha for interim maintenance and has directed the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to applicant no.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month for her daughter. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has assailed the order dated 12.02.2025 on the ground that the trial court has overlooked the principles laid down in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 while passing the order. He has next submitted that the trial court has erred in passing the impugned order determining the quantum of interim maintenance compensation on the basis of false salary certificate submitted by opposite party. 6. It is important to note that the present revision has been filed by Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prerna Surolia, Ravi Kant Surolia Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Smt. Indu Sisodia And Another .....Revisionist(s) Gaurav Singh .....Opposite Party(s) the revisionist being aggrieved by the interim maintenance order that has been passed by the trial court. The revisionist has an alternative remedy of seeking modification of the same under Section 127 Cr.P.C./ 146 B.N.S.S. since no final order till date has been passed and in a revision petition, the question of quantum is to be looked only after evidence has been adduced by both sides in regard to sufficiency of income of the applicant as well as opposite party. 7. The applicant/ revisionist has alleged that the trial court has determined the interim maintenance amount based on false salary certificate submitted by opposite party in the complaint case. The same document is a fabricated one or is a genuine one has to be decided on evidence that is led by both sides and at the interim stage, in absence of any evidence, a conclusion cannot be drawn as to falsity of the documents that have been brought on record. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that the revisionist has filed an asset certificate of opposite party before the trial court but the trial court has failed to apply its judicial mind to the asset certificate. The asset certificate of opposite party number has been filed along with application wherein he has shown his monthly income to be Rs.35,000/- and the trial court has also mentioned the same in its order dated 12.02.2025. 9. After taking into consideration the asset certificate filed by the applicant as well as the opposite party, as is apparent from the impugned order dated 12.02.2025, this Court finds that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The same needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed. May 8, 2026 KS CRLR No. 7735 of 2025 2 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad