ANIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6612 of 2024

Anit Kumar
                                                   .....Revisionist(s)
                              Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                       .....Opposite
                                                             Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Satya    Narayan       Gupta,
                                Yogendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajai Mani Tiwari, G.A.

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
                                                        CRLR No. 6612 of 2024
                            2

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
                                                                   3

                                        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
                                                                              (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad