JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. List has been revised. None present for the revisionist. 2. Heard learned AGA and perused the pleadings of the Criminal Revision. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 13.08.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow by which the application for grant of interim maintenance was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.900/- per month as an interim maintenance to the opposite party from the date of the application. The order was challenged on the ground that the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence on record properly and in right perspective. 3. A perusal of the record reveals that the marriage has not been denied but it has been denied that the wife was living with her parents and is not able to maintain herself. 4. The learned Principal Judge, considering all the facts and evidence has allowed the applicant and granted Rs.900/- per month as interim maintenance to the opposite party who is the wife. 5. The finding given by the Court below are finding of fact and the revisional court cannot upset the finding of fact as has been held in the case of Munni Devi vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2002 SC 107 ; Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1975 SC 1960 ; and Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 . 6. In the case of Parvati Rani Sahu vs. Vishnuppada Sahu; 2002 (10) SCC 310, it has been held that the revisional court has no power to reassess the evidence and substitute its own finding and the finding of facts cannot be reopened at the revisional stage and the revisional court cannot substitute its own view. 7. A perusal of the order reveals that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.