HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2760 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Meerut in Case No.426 of 2018 (Smt. Kanika Swami vs. Shubham Joshi) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Medical, District Meerut, whereby the learned trial court has allowed the interim application filed by the opposite party no.2 bearing Paper No.23B and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.8000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance since the date of filing of the application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is first wife of the revisionist who is living separate from him without any sufficient cause and filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with an application for interim maintenance which was decided by order dated 05.04.2025 fixing the amount of interim maintenance Rs.8000/- per month. He further submits that a decree of divorce was passed ex-parte between the parties u/s 13B of Hindu Marriage Act and then the revisionist entered into second marriage and has children from the second wife. He was working in Merchant Navy as an Engineer but now he is not in service. On the other hand, the opposite party no.2 is chartered accountant and works in Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shubham Joshi .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) a private company in Noida but no knowledge about her income. He further submits that he filed the details of account of the opposite party no.2 through supplementary affidavit showing transactions in her account in the business of crypto currency regarding which the amount of Rs.4,34,000/- was taken by some person and an F.I.R. was lodged by her in the police station concerned as Crime No.342 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C., copy of which has been filed through the supplementary affidavit. It also shows that she is making transaction in crypto currency. In this way, the opposite party no.2 is able to maintain herself as having sufficient source of income, therefore, she cannot be said to be entitled for maintenance from the revisionist/husband. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.8000/- per month illegally, therefore, request to set aside the order dated 05.04.2025. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party no.2 is first wife of the revisionist whose marriage was performed in the year 2016. Thereafter, due to neglect on the part of the revisionist she started living apart from him and a decree of divorce was also passed ex-parte by the learned trial court in favour of husband and then he entered into second marriage and now he is living with his second wife having children with her. Admittedly, the revisionist was working as engineer in Merchant Navy as being B.Tech. degree holder and now working in O.C.S. Pvt. Ltd. company as Electrical Engineer on contract basis and gets Rs.1,50,000/- per month as mentioned by him in his affidavit filed in compliance of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324. On the other hand, there is nothing on record to show that there is regular income of the opposite party no.2 except the statement of bank account and the F.I.R. showing her transactions relating to crypto currency. On the basis of such transactions accurate income of the opposite party no.2 cannot be determined. On the basis of decree of divorce on mutual consent u/s 13B of Hindu Marriage Act claim of wife for maintenance does not come to an end. The amount Rs.8000/- per month as fixed by the learned trial court as interim maintenance in favour of wife out of the income of husband Rs.1,50,000/- per month cannot be said to be more than sufficient or disproportionate. The order dated 05.04.2025 passed by learned trial court cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous but this revision being devoid of CRLR No. 2760 of 2025 2 merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. September 9, 2025 Ashok Gupta CRLR No. 2760 of 2025 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad