HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2140 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mannu Ram Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar, Advocate holding brief Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the interim order dated 13th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli in Case No. 466 of 2022 (Parvati Vs. Moti Chand) under Section 125 Cr. P.C. whereby the trial court while passing the impugned order has rejected the interim maintenance allowance application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that since the trial court has not applied its judicial mind in passing the impugned order, the same is liable to be set aside. 3. . On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned interim order rejecting the interim maintenance allowance application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 4. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned interim order. 5. From perusal of the impugned interim order passed by the trial court, this Court is sorry to record that the trial court has passed the impugned interim order in a very casual manner. It has not applied its judicial mind nor has Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mannu Ram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Smt. Parvati Devi .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) perused the evidence as might be available on record. 6. In the impugned order, the trial court has recorded that " it is admitted fact that the respondent (opposite party no.2 herein) has transferred Rs. 8,50,000/- in the account of claimant (revisionist herein). She also holds agricultural land and is living in the house of the opposite party no.2." 7. On the basis of which statement of admission of the revisionist or any documentary evidence adduced before the trial court, the trial court under the impugned order has recorded that it is admitted fact. Before recording the said fact, the trial court neither mentioned the account number of the revisionist in which such Rs. 8,50,000/- has been credit nor the account number of opposite party no.2 from which said Rs. 8,50,000/- has been debited in the account of the revisionist. The trial court has also not mentioned as to how much agricultural land, the revisionist holds. 8. Today also when this Court made a query to the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as to from what evidence, the trial court has prima facie come to the conclusion that Rs. 8.,50,000/- has been transferred by opposite party no.2 in favour of the revisionist, he could not reply the same. 9. Accordingly, such interim order dated 13th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli in Case No. 466 of 2022 (Parvati Vs. Moti Chand) under Section 125 Cr. P.C. rejecting the interim maintenance allowance of the revisionist under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C., which has been passed in a casual manner, cannot be legally sustained and therefore, the same is set aside. 10. Since in the opinion of the Court the impugned interim order is illegal, normally this Court would have remanded the matter under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. to the trial court for deciding afresh, but looking to the huge pendency before the trial court and also for saving the precious time of the trial court, this Court is proceeding to grant interim maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionist during the pendency of the trial proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 11. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and the old age of the revisionist and the total period of marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 which was held 43 years ago, this Court is of the opinion that Rs. 3,000/- per month as interim maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionist is realistic and reasonable. 12. This Court, therefore, directs the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the revisionist regularly towards interim maintenance allowance from CRLR No. 2140 of 2024 2 the the date of impugned interim order passed by the trial court till the final outcome of the instant proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 13. It is also clarified that since the instant proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being Case No. 466 of 2022 is pending for long, the trial court shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after giving notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment. 14. The present criminal revision, is accordingly, allowed. 15. There shall be no orders as to costs. September 18, 2025 Sushil/- CRLR No. 2140 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad