JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : The challenge in this revision is made to the Judgment and order dated 27.02.2024, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.210 of 2023, Smt. Parlavi Vs. Chetan Prakash, by the court of Judge, Family Court 1st, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By which, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to his wife (“private respondent”) as interim maintenance. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by which, the private respondent sought maintenance from the revisionist. It has been the case of the private respondent that after marriage, she was harassed by the revisionist and her in-laws in connection with demand of dowry. She was expelled from her matrimonial house. They also attempted to kill her. There were Panchayat in between. Finally, on 27.04.2022, the private respondent was expelled from her matrimonial home. She has been staying in her parental house. 4. With regard to the maintenance, it is the case of the private respondent that she is not able to maintain herself, whereas the revisionist gets Rs.60,000/- per month from the Railway Department where he serves. He has other income also. 5. In the case, an application for interim maintenance was filed, which was objected to by the private respondent. It has been the case of the revisionist that the marriage took place in a very simple manner during COVID-19 Pandemic. The private respondent is able to maintain herself, whereas due to harassment to the revisionist, his increments have been stopped. The revisionist has responsibility of his old aged parents and a younger brother. The private respondent was never harassed in the house of the revisionist. 6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the court below directed the revisionist to pay Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the private respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the award of maintenance is on higher side. He would submit that the revisionist has the responsibility of his old aged parents and his younger brother. The private respondent also earns by running a shop. It is also argued that the private respondent is staying separate without any reasonable cause. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the award of maintenance is on higher side. He would submit that the revisionist has the responsibility of his old aged parents and his younger brother. The private respondent also earns by running a shop. It is also argued that the private respondent is staying separate without any reasonable cause. 8. What is the cause for staying separate, there are divergent claims made by both the parties. It will find scrutiny once parties are permitted to give evidence. The fact remains that the private respondent is staying separate from her husband. In the impugned order, the court below has considered the means of private respondent and held that there is no evidence on record in support of the claim made by the revisionist that the private respondent is able to maintain herself. In so far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the admitted salary of the revisionist is Rs.20,300/- has been taken as income of the revisionist and based on it, interim maintenance has been granted. 9. Whatever reasoning given by the court below is as per law. The award of maintenance, by no stretch of imagination may be termed as excessive. Therefore, there is no occasion to entertain the instant revision. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 10. The revision is dismissed in limine.