1 2026:HHC:39122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev.(FC) No. 25 of 2024 Date of decision: 14.09.2026 Ajay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Sweta Rani …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.P.Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “That after calling for the record from the Court below, the Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge (II), Family Court, Una, District Una, H.P. in Cr. M.A. No.760/2023 titled ‘Sweta Rani versus Ajay Kumar’ may kindly be ordered to be set aside and the application filed by the respondent for grant of interim maintenance may kindly be ordered to be dismissed, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the petition. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 2026:HHC:39122 3. In terms of the impugned order, the application filed by the respondent herein for grant of interim maintenance stand decided by the learned Court below by awarding a sum of 5,000/- ₹5,000/- as interim maintenance from the date of application, along with litigation expenses of 10,000/-. The contention of the learned ₹5,000/- counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is a BAMS graduate and that she is an educated lady and further that the affidavit of declaration of assets and liabilities was not filed by the respondent as per law, does not impress us. In fact, a perusal of the order under challenge demonstrates that it was the petitioner herein who had not approached the learned Court below with clean hands and had furnished two affidavits of assets and liabilities, in one, he had claimed that his monthly income was about 43,000/- per month, ₹5,000/- whereas in the second one, he claimed that he was unemployed after being relieved from service. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to justify the same by submitting that the earlier affidavit was of the time when he was in service, and the subsequent one was of the time when his services were terminated, but we are of the considered view that the petitioner, in his capacity as the husband of the respondent, owes an obligation to look-after the respondent, and otherwise also, an amount of 5,000/-, which has ₹5,000/- been granted by the learned Court below for the and that too as an interim maintenance, cannot be said to be an exorbitant amount. 3 2026:HHC:39122 4. Accordingly, we are dismissing this petition without interfering with the impugned order but as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Court below is directed to make an endeavour to decide the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 125 of Cr.PC as expeditiously as possible, and preferably on or before 31st January 2027. Parties are directed to extend full cooperation to the learned Court below. 5. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge 14th September, 2026. (yogesh)