ANUJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8225 of 2025

Anuj
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Abhay Kumar, Pushpendra Kumar,
                                Ramdhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Saurabh Singh

Court No. - 85
                     HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Petitioner- Husband is aggrieved against the order dated 13.11.2025
passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Case No.974 of
2024, titled Smt. Madhavi and another vs. Anuj, whereby the application
for interim maintenance filed by the wife has been allowed, thereby
awarding a monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/ & Rs.2000/-, respectively in
favour of the wife and the child (respondent nos.2 & 3).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is serving
in Indian Army and he is presently posted in Leh- Ladakh and the wife is
residing separately from the petitioner without any valid cause. Learned
counsel has further argued that the petitioner is willing to reside with his
wife, but the wife has chosen to stay with her parents along with her child
and the trial court has not carefully analyzed the pleadings and conduct of
the parties while allowing interim maintenance of Rs.5000/ and Rs.2000/-
, respectively in favour of the wife and the child. He submits that the wife
has been threatening the petitioner to commit suicide or implicating in a
criminal case, whereas there is no reason of differences between the
couple. He has further argued that the petitioner's wife is XIIth pass, who
is otherwise engaged in embroidery and stitching cloths to earn
approximately Rs.30,000/- per month, besides, earning Rs.15,000/- per
month by giving tutions and she competent to maintain herself has filed
the claim of maintenance on frivolous grounds. Learned counsel has
argued that the amount of awarded through the impugned order is not
                                                                                            CRLR No. 8225 of 2025
                                                                     2


                                    justified, therefore, the impugned order calls for interference by this
                                    Court.

                                    After hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this
                                    Court finds that concededly, the parties are residing separately and the
                                    petitioner- husband has specifically pleaded his liability to maintain
                                    opposite party nos.2 & 3 and in this respect specific averment in the
                                    grounds of revision is also made.

                                    During the course of hearing, it is also not disputed by learned counsel
                                    that the petitioner is drawing a salary of approximately Rs.70,000/- per
                                    month, who is serving in Indian Army, therefore, considering the facts
                                    and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to
                                    interfere with the impugned order, whereby as an interim measure, only a
                                    sum of Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- per month, respectively in favour of the
                                    wife and the child (respondent nos.2 & 3) has been awarded. The stand of
                                    the petitioner that he is willing to keep his wife and is keen to explore the
                                    possibility may be a good gesture on his part, but in this regard, the
                                    parties can make an attempt before the court where the proceedings are
                                    pending, which are yet to be finally adjudicated.

                                    A perusal of the impugned order would show that the findings are based
                                    upon correct appreciation of material on record, therefore, this Court has no
                                    hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 does not
                                    suffer from any illegality or impropriety.

                                    Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.



                                                                                               (Manoj Bajaj,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Raj




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