HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8225 of 2025 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. Petitioner- Husband is aggrieved against the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Case No.974 of 2024, titled Smt. Madhavi and another vs. Anuj, whereby the application for interim maintenance filed by the wife has been allowed, thereby awarding a monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/ & Rs.2000/-, respectively in favour of the wife and the child (respondent nos.2 & 3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is serving in Indian Army and he is presently posted in Leh- Ladakh and the wife is residing separately from the petitioner without any valid cause. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is willing to reside with his wife, but the wife has chosen to stay with her parents along with her child and the trial court has not carefully analyzed the pleadings and conduct of the parties while allowing interim maintenance of Rs.5000/ and Rs.2000/- , respectively in favour of the wife and the child. He submits that the wife has been threatening the petitioner to commit suicide or implicating in a criminal case, whereas there is no reason of differences between the couple. He has further argued that the petitioner's wife is XIIth pass, who is otherwise engaged in embroidery and stitching cloths to earn approximately Rs.30,000/- per month, besides, earning Rs.15,000/- per month by giving tutions and she competent to maintain herself has filed the claim of maintenance on frivolous grounds. Learned counsel has argued that the amount of awarded through the impugned order is not Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhay Kumar, Pushpendra Kumar, Ramdhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Saurabh Singh Anuj .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) justified, therefore, the impugned order calls for interference by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court finds that concededly, the parties are residing separately and the petitioner- husband has specifically pleaded his liability to maintain opposite party nos.2 & 3 and in this respect specific averment in the grounds of revision is also made. During the course of hearing, it is also not disputed by learned counsel that the petitioner is drawing a salary of approximately Rs.70,000/- per month, who is serving in Indian Army, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, whereby as an interim measure, only a sum of Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- per month, respectively in favour of the wife and the child (respondent nos.2 & 3) has been awarded. The stand of the petitioner that he is willing to keep his wife and is keen to explore the possibility may be a good gesture on his part, but in this regard, the parties can make an attempt before the court where the proceedings are pending, which are yet to be finally adjudicated. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the findings are based upon correct appreciation of material on record, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. May 6, 2026 Raj CRLR No. 8225 of 2025 2 (Manoj Bajaj,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad