Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/304/2015 of Balvinder Singh Vs Smt. Gurmaij Kaur Alias Ganga on 17 August 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010038812015 CRLR/304/2015 Balvinder Singh --Revisionist Versus Smt. Gurmaij Kaur Alias Ganga --Respondents Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Bhupendra
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
UKHC010038812015 CRLR/304/2015
Balvinder Singh --Revisionist Versus Smt. Gurmaij Kaur Alias Ganga --Respondents
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Bhupendra Prasad, Advocate for the revisionist.
2. Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, Advocate for the respondents.
3. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order 20.07.2015 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 28 of 2014, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which, the revisionist was directed to Rs. 1500/- each, as interim maintenance to his wife (respondent no. 1) as well as minor daughter (respondent no. 2), who is admittedly adopted daughter of the revisionist.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the learned Trial Court has not considered the fact that respondent no. 1 has herself deserted the revisionist and without any sufficient cause, she has left her matrimonial house.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.
and submits that
revisionist’s behaviour was cruel to the respondent no. 1 and he used to harass her and after doing marpeet with her, threw her out of the house and thereafter did not permit her to enter into the house.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. 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 order warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.)
17.08.2026 Ujjwal