BALWANT SINGH JOGA Vs. GURMAIL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The crux of the facts, relevant for deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of petition under Section 125 Cr.PC filed by respondent Gurmail Kaur against her husband -petitioner Balwant Singh, the trial Magistrate awarded Rs. 5000/- per month as ad interim maintenance, by virtue of impugned order dated 23.7.2007 (Annexure P7).

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the trial Magistrate, the petitioner husband filed a revision petition, which was dismissed as well by the revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 9.9.2008 (Annexure P8).

(3.) The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and filed the second revision petition, in the garb of instant petition for quashing the impugned orders (Annxures P7 and P8) invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC. That is how I am seized of the matter.