HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7551 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. representing the State opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Shivam Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3. 2. Perused the record. 3. The revisionist, Pratik Kumar has approached this Court by means of the present criminal revision, assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Case No. 2453 of 2021, Lucky Dhusiya and others v. Prateek Kumar, whereby the Trial Court directed the revisionist to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 12000/- per month to opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 5000/- per month to opposite party no. 3, in aggregate sum of Rs. 17000/- per month as interim maintenance. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision on the ground that the Trial Court has committed a manifest error of law in passing the impugned judgment and order. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed without properly considering the evidence on record and the financial condition of the parties. It is further contended that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and on false, fabricated and concocted grounds. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for allowing the present revision and setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the Trial Court directed the revisionist to pay an aggregate sum of Rs.17000/- per month Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manoj Kumar Yadav, Ravi Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shivam Shukla, Sushil Kumar Shukla Pratik Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) towards maintenance. However, apart from the aforesaid proceedings, proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were also instituted, wherein the Magistrate concerned awarded maintenance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 & 3 which the revisionist is paying regularly. It is further submitted that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, despite the fact that, where maintenance has already been awarded by another court in any other proceeding, the amount so awarded is required to be adjusted/merged while determining the amount payable under the subsequent order. The Trial Court, having failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and to make an appropriate order regarding adjustment of the maintenance already being paid by the revisionist, has committed an error of law. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and the present criminal revision deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and supported the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate, while passing the order under the relevant provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, had already provided for adjustment of the maintenance amount, in case any maintenance was awarded in favour of the applicants in any other proceedings. It is further submitted that in the present case, the learned Magistrate had already passed an order dated 29.07.2024 providing for adjustment/merger of the maintenance amount awarded in the present proceedings with the amount awarded under the proceedings relating to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Thus, the grievance raised by the revisionist has already been addressed by the said order and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. When confronted with the aforesaid submissions and the order dated 29.07.2024, learned counsel for the revisionist could not satisfactorily overcome the same. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of both the orders, it is evident that the learned Magistrate, while passing the order dated 29.07.2024, had already provided for adjustment/merger of the maintenance amount awarded under the proceedings arising out of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the maintenance amount awarded in any subsequent proceedings. Once such an order for CRLR No. 7551 of 2025 2 adjustment/merger of the maintenance amount had already been passed by the competent court, no further or separate order in that regard is warranted in the impugned judgment and order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. September 8, 2026 Brijesh Maurya CRLR No. 7551 of 2025 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad