No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS CRLR No. 376 of 2026 Arun Chauhan ..... Revisionist Vs. Neelam Chauhan and Another .... Respondents Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Arun Chauhan, revisionist present in- person. 2. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Pankaj Semwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. 4. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dehradun in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, whereby, the interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- has been awarded in favour of respondent no.1. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, whereby, the appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed and the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dehradun was affirmed. 5. Revisionist, who appears in person, submits that at present, he is unemployed. It is also submitted by him that respondent no.1 is highly educated, possessing qualification of M.A. (Yoga) and has also qualified UGC-NET and she was employed as Assistant Professor (Yoga) in a University at Churu, Rajasthan, but she voluntarily left her employment in July, 2022. It is further contended that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.11.2021 and the parties have been living separately since 04.02.2023. It is further submitted by him that the pleadings and versions of respondent no.1 across various proceedings are inconsistent and contradictory with respect to the alleged incidents of harassment and cruelty attributed to the revisionist, thereby casting doubt upon her claim. On these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned orders suffer from illegality and requires interference by this Court. It is further contended that the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 by the Magistrate concerned is non- speaking, as no cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Magistrate concerned as to how the quantum of ₹5,000/- per month has been determined. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the learned Magistrate concerned has rightly determined interim maintenance at ₹5,000/- per month after due consideration of the affidavit of income filed by the revisionist in compliance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it has been disclosed that the take-home salary of the revisionist after statutory deductions is approximately ₹43,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the revisionist’s father is a retired government servant and there is no financial liability upon the revisionist towards his parents. It is also contended that the learned Magistrate concerned has passed a reasoned and well-considered order based on material on record and the same does not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that no jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity is made out in the impugned orders warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate concerned has determined interim maintenance on the basis of the income affidavit filed by the revisionist in compliance with the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra), wherein his monthly take-home salary has been disclosed to be approximately ₹43,000/, which is sufficient to justify the quantum of ₹5,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the respondent no.1. The plea that the impugned orders are non-speaking is also untenable, as the orders reflect consideration of relevant factors including income, status and needs of the parties. The issues raised regarding the qualifications and past employment of respondent no.1 involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in revisional proceedings. 9. 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 order does not fall within the limited scope of revision against the interim maintenance. The learned court below has exercised its discretion in a judicious manner and the same does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mahra J.) 17.06.2026 Ujjwal