HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8976 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present criminal revision is being preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, in Case No.990 of 2025 (Smt. Rekha Rani and others Vs. Anshul Kushwaha), u/s 144 BNSS, by which the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.8000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife and Rs.4000/- per month to the opposite party no.3/minor daughter, as interim maintenance, from the date of application i.e. 16.10.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 had been solemnized on 05.02.2022 according to Hindu rites and ritual without any dowry. The opposite party no.2 is a woman of independent thinking who always humiliated the revisionist and his family using filthy language on the petty issues. On 11.06.2023, opposite party no.2 went to her parental house with her father to participate in a birth day program of her nephew taking her valuable clothes and ornaments and she never come back to the revisionist's house. Opposite party no.2 is living separately without any reasonable ground at her own sweet will, thus she is not entitled for maintenance. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Agam Prakash Satsangi, Chetan Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anshul Kushwaha .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the opposite party no.2 filed the false and concocted case under section 144 B.N.S.S. against the revisionist on 14.07.2025 which was registered as Case No.990 of 2025 (Smt. Rekha Rani and others Vs. Anshul Kushwaha) before the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Jhansi. He further submits that opposite party no.2 earns Rs.35,000/- monthly from giving private tutions. It is further contended that at the time of marriage, the opposite party no.2's father took seven lakh rupees from his father and took out a loan of three and a half lakh rupees to purchase a car in his name. Revisionist works as a driver, earning Rs10,000/- per month by driving a four-wheel-drive loading vehicle and paying a car installment of Rs.6,250/-, thus he is unable to grant interim maintenance to the opposite party no.2 and 3. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 submits that the revisionist harassed the opposite party no.2 and expelled her from the house demanding additional dowry. The revisionist is not providing any maintenance for her or her child and the opposite party no.2 has no source of income and is unable to support herself and her child. The revisionist owns Mohan Tent House, Mohan Hardware, a cement shop, and two four-wheeler small vehicles, Mangalam Marriage Hall, located in Jhansi and Lalitpur. The revisionist earns an income of Rs.2 lakh per month and is fully capable of maintaining the opposite party no.2 and 3. 6. Perusal of the impugned order of learned trial court shows that the application under section 144 BNSS for granting of interim maintenance was allowed primarily on the ground that according to the revisionist's own statements indicate that he has a substantial income, that is why he maintains the car. The revisionist is concealing his income. The revisionist has not stated in his affidavit of assets and liabilities that he has anyone other than the opposite party nos.2 and 3 as dependents. Therefore, the revisionist is responsible for supporting the livelihood of opposite party nos.2 and 3. 7. Perusal of record further shows that the order dated 18.11.2025 is an order of interim maintenance, which has not attained finality. The Hon'ble CRLR No. 8976 of 2025 2 Supreme Court in the case of Shalu Ojha Vs. Prashant Ojha (2018) 8 SCC 452, held that in case of interim application, the court arrived at the figure of maintenance on the basis of the affidavits filed by both the parties along with their respective documents and it is only after the evidence is led by the parties, the veracity and evidentiary value of such material can be finally adjudged more particularly, when the said material and assertions of the parties would be tested with their cross-examination. It is further being observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case that under a legislation meant for protecting the rights of the women the High Court should be slow in granting interim orders, interfering with the order by which interim maintenance is granted to opposite party no.2/wife. Since the present order under challenge is an interim order and the finality of the case is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led by both the parties, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial court concerned. 8. The revisionist has every opportunity to file evidence regarding his source of income and other movable and immovable assets and the same has to be decided by the learned trial court concerned finally on basis of documentary and oral evidence, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. 9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order dated 18.11.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, in Case No.990 of 2025 (Smt. Rekha Rani and others Vs. Anshul Kushwaha), u/s 144 BNSS, needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed. May 12, 2026 VKG CRLR No. 8976 of 2025 3 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad