Allahabad High Court
Rohit Jain vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:208895
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6596 of 2024
Rohit Jain
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Brijesh Kumar Prajapati, Khwaja Shamshad Ahmad, Shyam Mohan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shyam Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record.
2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the interim order dated 15th October, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Meerut in Case No. 857 of 2019 (Smt. Sweta Jain Vs. Rohit Jain) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the interim stay application being Application No. 16B (16KHa) filed in the instant application has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards interim maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the amount of interim maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned order to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 towards interim monthly maintenance allowance is excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income the revisionist.
4. Also, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that pursuant to the judgment and order passed by the trial court in the proceedings initiated by opposite party no.2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the revisionist is already paying total Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance and rent for accommodation.
5 . On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court while passing the impugned interim order has not appreciated the factum of the case, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other-hand learned A.G.A. has opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned interim order passed by the trial court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned interim order passed by the trial court, this Court finds that the impugned order is an interim order and the trial court, considering the fact that the revisionist himself claims to be holding of B.Tech degree and works as a Sales Executive before the trial court, has awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2. At the interim stage, the trial court only on the basis of prima facie case has passed the said order.
8. Keeping in view the present inflation, scenario, cost of living, food, clothing, medical expenses etc., this Court is of the prima facie view that the amount of interim monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned order to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month each in favour of opposite party no. 2 cannot be said to be excessive, exorbitant and illegal.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned interim order passed by the trial court, this Court finds that the impugned order is an interim order and the trial court only on the basis of prima facie case has passed the said order.
10. This Court may also record that the instant application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending consideration before the trial court for final adjudication and the same shall be decided after oral as well as documentary evidence have to be led. During the course of trial the parties will have ample opportunity to file their respective evidence before the trial court. After filing of oral as well as documentary evidence and after trial proceedings, the trial court will decide as to whether the revisionist is entitled to get any maintenance allowance or not and as to how much amount is the revisionist entitled and also from which period is she awarded maintenance allowance.
11. Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the interim order impugned passed by the trial court.
12. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
13. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is already paying total Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance and rent for accommodation, in compliance of the judgment and order passed by the trial court in the proceedings initiated by opposite party no.2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is concerned, this Court provides that the revisionist may file an appropriate application before the trial court in any of the proceedings either in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or in the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act for adjustment of the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded in both the proceedings, which shall be decided in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
November 21, 2025
Sushil/-
