HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7219 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist in Court today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. 3. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the interim order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur in Case No. 386 of 2024 (Seema Devi vs. Birendra Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station–Husainganj, District–Fatehpur, whereby the trial court, while allowing the interim maintenance application of opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 towards interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court, without properly appreciating the evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 is not the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. According to the revisionist, opposite party no. 2 is, in fact, the legally wedded wife of his elder brother, namely Vinod Kumar, and opposite party nos. 3 and 4, namely Aditi and Akriti, were born out of the said wedlock. In such circumstances, opposite party no. 2 is merely the revisionist's bhabhi (sister-in-law). 5. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to the marriage invitation card at page 36 of the paper book, wherein the name of the groom is mentioned as Vinod Kumar and the bride as Seema (opposite party no. 2). He has further referred to the school mark sheets of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 issued by New Standard Public School, Raebareli, placed at pages 40 and 41 of the paper book, as well as their Aadhaar Cards at pages 38 and 39, wherein the name of their father is Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satya Man Singh, Vidya Dhar Yadav Birendra Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) recorded as Vinod Kumar. It is, therefore, contended that opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to any maintenance from the revisionist. 6. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from perversity and is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 submits that the revisionist is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and the father of opposite party nos. 3 and 4. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon certain photographs, voter identity cards, family register entries, and the affidavit filed in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 324. 8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the interim order dated 03.01.2025 was passed by the learned trial court after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties and upon consideration of the pleadings, objections, and affidavits filed in support thereof. Thus, no apparent illegality or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned order. 9. The record further reflects that the revisionist did not file any affidavit in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others (supra). Moreover, the order dated 03.01.2025 is merely an order granting interim maintenance and has not attained finality. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Shalu Ojha vs. Prashant Ojha, (2018) 8 SCC 452, has held that while deciding an application for interim maintenance, the Court arrives at a tentative figure on the basis of affidavits and documents filed by the parties, and it is only after evidence is adduced that the veracity and evidentiary value of such material can be conclusively determined, particularly after cross-examination. The Apex Court further observed that in matters arising under welfare legislation enacted for protection of women, superior courts should exercise restraint in interfering with orders granting interim maintenance. 11. Since the order under challenge is only an interim order and the rights and liabilities of the parties are yet to be finally adjudicated upon the basis of oral and documentary evidence, no ground for interference is made out. 12. The revisionist shall have full opportunity before the trial court to adduce evidence regarding the disputed marital relationship between the parties, as well as with respect to his income, assets and liabilities. These issues are to be conclusively determined by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence led by the parties. Hence, no interference by this Court is warranted at this stage. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the interim order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal CRLR No. 7219 of 2025 2 Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur in Case No. 386 of 2024 (Seema Devi vs. Birendra Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station–Husainganj, District–Fatehpur, directing payment of interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2. The present criminal revision, therefore, lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is hereby dismissed. 15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. May 11, 2026 Zafar CRLR No. 7219 of 2025 3 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad