HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1866 of 2026 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Aakriti Chaturvedi, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Jagrati Nigam, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant criminal revision has been preferred with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause along with delay condonation application as there is delay of 509 days in filing this revision. The relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the revision is delineated below:- "It is therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned Order dated 10.1.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau in Case No.287 of 2024 (Sheela Devi Vs. Vinod), Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the revisionist was directed to Pay Maintenance to opposite party no.2, and/or passed such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. So the justice may be done." 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that by the impugned order dated 10.01.2025, amount of Rs.2500/- has been granted as maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2/wife from the date of order while the application for maintenance was filed on 18.03.2024. She further submits that the revisionist is an unemployed person, therefore, he is not able to maintain his wife. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Km Jagrati Nigam, Madhup Vishwas Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinod .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. This Court after perusal of the record finds that yet the proceedings is pending for final adjudication and while granting amount of interim maintenance, the trial court has not granted the expenses of the proceeding. The revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 10.01.2025, whereby amount of Rs.2500 has been granted as interim maintenance, after gap of 509 days, which is an inordinate delay. 5. In view of above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the revisionist, and the revision is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that meagre amount of maintenance has been granted by the trial court and issuing notice to opposite party no.2 for such meagre amount, would amount to injustice with her. 6. However, in the interest of justice, this Court directs the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau to finally adjudicate the pending application under Section 125 Cr.P.C./144 BNSS, in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, preferably within a period of six months, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either parties. September 23, 2026 Manish Himwan CRLRD No. 1866 of 2026 2 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad