JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The petitioner, despite service, is not present in Court. The respondents herein had a filed a petition under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., wherein she claimed an ad interim maintenance comprised in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the petitioner (herein), for herself besides her minor children. The petition stood contested by her husband/petitioner (herein). Upon considering the relevant evidences adduced before him, by the parties at contest, the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, on 10.11.2016, proceeded to allow the petition and in the operative part of the order, which stands extracted hereinafter: “Keeping in view the constitutional spirit envisaged in Article 15(3) i.e. to avoid destitution and vagrancy, the court deems it fit that ad-interim maintenance is liable to be granted to the applicants/aggrieved persons. Therefore, at the same time, the court need to take care of the liability of the respondent also and as per the allegations of the respondent in his reply and documents supplied, the only of the respondent is his disease, therefore, after balancing both sides, the Court deems it fit that ad-interim allowance of Rs. 10,000/- in total) be granted in favour of all the applicants/aggrieved persons till final disposal of main petition. Accordingly ordered. Needless to say, it would be having no bearing on the merits of main petition. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the applicants/free of costs. Application stands disposed of. Be regd. and be tagged with main petition.” he declared the aggrieved applicants, to be entitled, to ad-interim maintenance quantified at sum of Rs. 10,000/- (in total). Subsequent thereto, under Annexure P-6, an endeavour was made by the aggrieved applicants, to, make corrections, in paragraph-5 of the order recorded on 10.11.2016, wherein the ad-interim allowance, as quantified therein in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (in total), was, prayed to be corrected to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, under orders recorded on 16.1.2017, hence allowed the application. 10,000/- (in total), was, prayed to be corrected to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, under orders recorded on 16.1.2017, hence allowed the application. The petitioner herein being aggrieved therefrom, has instituted the instant criminal revision petition before this Court AND makes a prayer therein, of, the aforesaid correction, made through the impugned order, by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, being grossly impermissible, (i) it being beyond the domain of the jurisdiction conferred upon him, under Section 362 of the Cr. P.C., (ii) it being not construable to be either a clerical or a arithmetical error. However, the aforesaid contention addressed before this Court, does not, carry any weight, as a wholesome reading of the petition reared by the respondents herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, besides, of, readings, the operative paragraph-5, of the verdict of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, rendered on 10.11.2016, does bear out, the reasonings arrived at by the Court concerned, while his recording the impugned order, on 16.11.2017. Since the Court concerned had initially arrived at a conclusion, of the petitioner herein earning a sum of Rs. 23,000/- per mensem, also when it concluded, of, the aggrieved applicants, not earning any income, sufficient to maintain themselves, thereupon the needs of the applicants aggrieved could not be satiated, only upon, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (in total) being assessed as maintenance, vis-à-vis them, as initially embodied in the orders recorded on 10.11.2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned. Consequently, the aforesaid sum assessed in (total) vis-à-vis the respondents, is obviously to be concluded to stand generated, by clerical/arithmetical besides by a sheer typographical error. Consequently, its correction from Rs. 10,000/- (in total) to Rs. 10,000/- (per mensem), through, the impugned order, is within the domain of Section 362 of Cr. P.C. . 2. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.