No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS CRLR No. 346 of 2021 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Rohit Kumar, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned A.G.A for the State. 3. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2. 4. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgments and orders dated 15.03.2021 and 25.10.2021 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 209 of 2016, Doli @ Praveen Katariya Vs. Jogendra, whereby, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and interim maintenance of Rs.8000/- per month has been awarded to respondent no. 2 from the date of filing of the application i.e. 14.09.2016. 5. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 initially filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 209 of 2016 before the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. Her application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 8000/- to respondent no. 2 from the date of filing of the application i.e. 14.09.2016. When revisionist failed to pay the awarded interim maintenance, as awarded vide order dated 15.03.2021, respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 80 of 2021 to recover the interim maintenance from the revisionist, whereby, the revisionist did not appear on the date fixed and learned court below vide order dated 25.10.2021 issued recovery warrant against the revisionist for the recovery of arrear of the interim maintenance through Police Station–Sadar, District Saharanpur, District Uttar Pradesh. Feeling aggrieved, the present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that revisionist is still unemployed and he is ready to pay the maintenance from the date of passing of the judgment and order dated 15.03.2021. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the court below has wrongly considered the income of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionists would further submit that fixation of the income by the Trial Court is merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the Court below has also failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically stated in the catena of judgments that at the time of fixation of the maintenance, the Court should have considered the concrete evidence available on record in regard to the salary of the husband and the trial court erred in not appreciating the fact of the instant case. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 have opposed the instant revision. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Even in the order passed in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has been mentioned that revisionist was running a coaching class in Delhi and was earning around Rs. 45,000/- per month from there. Besides this, he was also working in an NGO from where he was earning Rs. 25,000/- approx. As such, he was earning around Rs. 70,000/- per month. Thus, after hearing the leaned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgments and orders dated judgments and orders dated 15.03.2021 and 25.10.2021. 10. Furthermore, it is also true that the scope of criminal revision is very restricted. It is exercised just to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. Evaluation and appreciation of evidence is not desired unless some admissible evidence is ignored or inadmissible evidence is taken into consideration. Furthermore, being a revision as against the order of interim maintenance, unless and until the figure is shockingly arbitrary or excessive, the Court should not interfere with the said order. The scope of revision against the order of interim maintenance is very limited. The impugned orders do not fall within the limited scope of revision against the interim maintenance. Hence, this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mahra J.) 10.06.2026 Ujjwal