JUDGMENT Vipin Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed being aggrieved against the order dated 13.03.2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Case No. 273 of 2013, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri by means of which application filed by opposite party no. 2 has been allowed granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2500/- from the date of application i.e. 27.05.2006. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the order impugned as well averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any legal infirmity in the order impugned which may warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused. Accordingly, the revision is rejected.