JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 13.01.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate Roorkee in Misc. case no.31 of 2015 as well as the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in criminal appeal no.13 of 2016. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Roorkee. On the basis of complaint, criminal case no.31 of 2015 was registered. Along with the complaint, complainant/respondent no.2 also moved an application for interim maintenance with the averments that marriage between the revisionist and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 27.03.2008, as per Muslim rituals. In the marriage, parents of respondent no.2 gave dowry beyond their status but the revisionist and his family members were not happy with the dowry and they started committing marpeet with her for bringing insufficient dowry. On 29.05.2009, when respondent no.2 was expecting a child, revisionist and his family members pushed her from stairs. Complainant/respondent no.2 further alleged that on 30.05.2009 when her brother came, she was ousted from house along with her brother. Complainant/respondent no.2 further alleged that she is an illiterate lady and has no sufficient means and is unable to maintain herself whereas the applicant is an agriculturist and is having 50 Bigha agricultural land and a milk dairy, and from all these resources, he is earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. Applicant filed objections to the interim maintenance application and denied the averments of the application. He also stated that he has no source of income and somehow he is maintaining his family by doing petty labour work. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court, vide order dated 11.01.2016, directed the revisionist to pay an interim maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of respondent no.2 from the date of order. Feeling aggrieved, revisionist preferred an appeal being Criminal appeal no.13 of 2016, which was also dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the learned courts below have committed illegality by granting interim maintenance allowance in favour of respondent no.2 as the respondent no.2/complainant is herself living separately without any sufficient cause. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the material available on record. 5. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the learned courts below have committed illegality by granting interim maintenance allowance in favour of respondent no.2 as the respondent no.2/complainant is herself living separately without any sufficient cause. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the material available on record. 5. Interim maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,000/- per month granted in favour of respondent no.2 against the revisionist would not be considered as exorbitant amount, rather it is a meager amount. In such view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. No interference is, therefore, called for. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.