BIRENDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7219 of 2025

Birendra Kumar
                                                               .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                    .....Opposite
                                                                          Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Ajay Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satya Man Singh, Vidya Dhar
                                Yadav

Court No. - 88
                     HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist in Court today is
taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite
party nos. 2 to 4, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

3. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the interim order
dated 03.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Fatehpur in Case No. 386 of 2024 (Seema Devi vs. Birendra Kumar),
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station–Husainganj, District–Fatehpur,
whereby the trial court, while allowing the interim maintenance application
of opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., directed the revisionist to
pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 towards interim
maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125
Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court, without
properly appreciating the evidence on record, passed the impugned order
awarding interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of opposite
party no. 2. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 is not the legally
wedded wife of the revisionist. According to the revisionist, opposite party
no. 2 is, in fact, the legally wedded wife of his elder brother, namely Vinod
Kumar, and opposite party nos. 3 and 4, namely Aditi and Akriti, were born
out of the said wedlock. In such circumstances, opposite party no. 2 is
merely the revisionist's bhabhi (sister-in-law).

5. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the revisionist
has referred to the marriage invitation card at page 36 of the paper book,
wherein the name of the groom is mentioned as Vinod Kumar and the bride
as Seema (opposite party no. 2). He has further referred to the school mark
sheets of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 issued by New Standard Public School,
Raebareli, placed at pages 40 and 41 of the paper book, as well as their
Aadhaar Cards at pages 38 and 39, wherein the name of their father is
                                                            CRLR No. 7219 of 2025
                                  2

recorded as Vinod Kumar. It is, therefore, contended that opposite party no.
2 is not entitled to any maintenance from the revisionist.

6. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from perversity and
is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 submits that the
revisionist is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and the father of opposite
party nos. 3 and 4. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed
upon certain photographs, voter identity cards, family register entries, and
the affidavit filed in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the interim order dated
03.01.2025 was passed by the learned trial court after affording an
opportunity of hearing to both parties and upon consideration of the
pleadings, objections, and affidavits filed in support thereof. Thus, no
apparent illegality or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned
order.

9. The record further reflects that the revisionist did not file any affidavit in
compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others (supra). Moreover, the order dated
03.01.2025 is merely an order granting interim maintenance and has not
attained finality.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Shalu Ojha vs. Prashant Ojha, (2018)
8 SCC 452, has held that while deciding an application for interim
maintenance, the Court arrives at a tentative figure on the basis of affidavits
and documents filed by the parties, and it is only after evidence is adduced
that the veracity and evidentiary value of such material can be conclusively
determined, particularly after cross-examination. The Apex Court further
observed that in matters arising under welfare legislation enacted for
protection of women, superior courts should exercise restraint in interfering
with orders granting interim maintenance.

11. Since the order under challenge is only an interim order and the rights
and liabilities of the parties are yet to be finally adjudicated upon the basis of
oral and documentary evidence, no ground for interference is made out.

12. The revisionist shall have full opportunity before the trial court to adduce
evidence regarding the disputed marital relationship between the parties, as
well as with respect to his income, assets and liabilities. These issues are to
be conclusively determined by the learned trial court on the basis of
evidence led by the parties. Hence, no interference by this Court is warranted
at this stage.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the
interim order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal
                                                                                            CRLR No. 7219 of 2025
                                                                     3

                                    Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur in Case No. 386 of 2024 (Seema Devi vs.
                                    Birendra Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station–Husainganj,
                                    District–Fatehpur, directing payment of interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/-
                                    per month to opposite party no. 2. The present criminal revision, therefore,
                                    lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

                                    14. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is hereby dismissed.

                                    15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
                                    May 11, 2026
                                    Zafar
                                                                                            (Achal Sachdev,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad