Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129036 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2164 of 2025 Revisionist :- Mayank Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhishek Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside and also quash the impugned order and judgment dated 28.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 359 of 2023 (Smt Nirupma Yadav Vs. Mayank Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Bishrakh, District Gautam Buddh Nagar whereby allowing interim maintenance application dated 05.05.2023 moved by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and directing the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the opposite party no. 3 and direct the learned court below to decide the said application pending under Section 340 Cr.P.C./389 B.N.S.S. first and then proceed to decide the maintenance application filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and further pray to stay the effect and operation of the impugned aforesaid order dated 28.03.2025. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor child.She has moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court with an application for interim maintenance. The application for interim maintenance was decided by the learned trial court dated 28.03.2025. He further submits that on 24.07.2024 he moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court regarding false allegations in the affidavit and regarding date of birth of the child but this application was not decided by the learned trial court and was kept pending and the present order was passed. He also submits that it was duty of the court to decide the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C./389 B.N.S.S. first and then to proceed further in the case. On this point the learned trial court has committed error, therefore, request to set aside the order dated 28.03.2025 and allow the revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the allegations made by the wife, opposite party no. 2 in the affidavit are correct and there are no any false statement made on her behalf and even the date of birth certificate is also not forged and at this stage this genuineness can also not be decided by the learned trial court but it is possible only when evidence led by the parties though he could not dispute the fact that application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is still pending and it must have been decided first then the application for interim maintenance. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of material on record, it appears that the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionist on 24.07.2024 that is still pending before the learned trial court and has not been decided yet. The learned trial court has passed the order on an application for interim maintenance on 28.03.2025 and kept the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. pending. The learned trial court must have decided the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. first and then to proceed further in the case. On this point the order passed by the learned trial court dated 28.03.2025 cannot sustain in the eyes of law but it is liable to set aside. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, allowed and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 28.03.2025 is hereby set aside and the learned trial court is directed to decide the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C./389 B.N.S.S. first within a period of 30 days from today in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and then to decide the application for interim maintenance. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad