HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6612 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Case called on in the revised list. None appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision, although the names of Mr. S.N. Gupta and Mr. Yogendra Pal Singh, Advocates are duly published in the cause list as counsel for the revisionist. Mr. Ajai Mani Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. representing the State are present. 2. This is a criminal revision of the year 2024. 3. Since none present on behalf of the revisionist to press this Criminal Revision, this Court proceeds to decide the revision with the assistance of learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. and on the basis of material available on record. 4. Heard Mr. Ajai Mani Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the material available on record. 5. Revisionist Anit Kumar has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Revision challenging the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Case No. 1003 of 2022, Smt. Anju Devi v. Anit Kumar. 6. By the impugned order, the Trial Court partly allowed the application 17Aa, made in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., filed by opposite party no. 2, and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 7000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 as interim Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Satya Narayan Gupta, Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajai Mani Tiwari, G.A. Anit Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) maintenance from the date of application. 7. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the present revision has been filed on the ground that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily, committing manifest illegality and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. A prayer, therefore, has been made to set aside the impugned order, allowing the present Criminal Revision. 8. It is averred in the revision that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. made by the opposite party no. 2 is not maintainable. It is further averred that opposite party no. 2 is living in adultery with one Ashish Malik but without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order erroneously committing manifest illegality. The impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside by this Court. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the revision and supported the impugned order. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that the Trial Court has, prima facie, found the revisionist to be the husband of opposite party no. 2 and, therefore, he is liable to pay interim maintenance to his wife, i.e., opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that, while considering an application for interim maintenance, the Trial Court is not required to undertake a detailed examination of the other facts, circumstances or evidence on record. At this stage, the principal consideration is whether a prima facie relationship of husband and wife exists between the parties. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the revisionist himself admitted that opposite party no. 2 is his wife. It is further submitted that it is the admission of the revisionist himself that he receives salary more than 50,000/- per month. Considering the income of the revisionist, the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month cannot be assessed to be too excessive, warranting interference by this Court. It is also submitted that, after considering the relevant material available on record, the Trial Court has passed a detailed and reasoned order granting interim maintenance to opposite party no. 2. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present CRLR No. 6612 of 2024 2 revision is liable to be dismissed. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, we find that the object of maintenance is to prevent destitution and to ensure that the dependent spouse and children are able to live with dignity. Upon careful examination of the impugned order, we find that the findings recorded by the Trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or perverse. No jurisdictional error or material irregularity has been pointed out in the impugned order. The findings recorded by the Trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 11. It is, accordingly, dismissed. September 21, 2026 Brijesh Maurya CRLR No. 6612 of 2024 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad