Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.10.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karnal and the order dated 18.8.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby order of interim maintenance granted to respondent No. 2 by the trial Magistrate had been affirmed. 2. The circumstances which led to the institution of the petitioner Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) need to be noticed. Smt Ramma and her son Sahil had claimed interim maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month each. According to the stand taken by the respondent-petitioners, Ramma had earlier married to Rajesh Batra on 5.12.1990. Out of this wedlock son Sahil, respondent No. 2, was born on 16.1.1992. Subsequently that marriage was dissolved. Parkash Bhutani, petitioner gave advertisement in the matrimonial column of Daily Punjab Kesari, Jalandhar for a suitable match. Ramma, respondent No. 1 responded to said advertisement. The marriage between her and Parkash Bhutani was solemnised in December, 1994. Thereafter it was found by respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was already married and had a living wife named Asha. The petitioner had no issue from his first wife and for that reason he agreed to adopt Sahil as his son. Adoption and Mundan ceremonies were also performed. Subsequently, both of them were turned out of the house which impelled the respondents to seek the protection of the Court by claiming maintenance for them. The petition was resisted by Parkash Bhutani, who took up the stand that Ramma is the legally wedded wife of Rajesh Batra and so far no divorce had been granted dissolving that marriage and for that reason respondent No. 1 could not claim maintenance in the petition filed by them. At the same time, petition was resisted on the ground that he had not married Ramma nor had taken Sahil in adoption as alleged in the petition filed by them. 3. The trial Magistrate after taking into account the respective stands of the parties denied the interim maintenance to Ramma, respondent No. 1 on the ground that she was not the wedded wife of the petitioner. However, Sahil, respondent No. 2 was granted maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of the application along with Rs. 800/- as costs of the litigation expenses. However, Sahil, respondent No. 2 was granted maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of the application along with Rs. 800/- as costs of the litigation expenses. The order of the trial Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Revision No. 50 of 1997, which was decided on 18.8.1998 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the order of the trial Magistrate was affirmed. It is these orders which have been challenged in the present petition. 4. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard Counsel for the respondents at length. 5. The grounds on which the orders of both the Courts below have been impugned in the present petition that the Courts below have misconstrued the documents placed on record and on that basis and come to an erroneous finding that petitioner No. 2 is adopted son of the petitioner. ? 6. Learned Counsel representing the respondents has vehemently urged before me that though the order of the trial Magistrate and that of the Additional Sessions Judge in declining the interim maintenance to Ramma, respondent No. 1 has not been challenged but there was overwhelming material on record before the Courts below in the shape of letters and photographs which clearly proves that Sahil had been taken in adoption by the petitioner. Additionally, he has also referred to the fact that the petitioner had also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Ramma which was dismissed on 27.3.1996 and the material placed on record had been rightly taken into account by both the Courts below. 7. I find considerable merit in the stand taken on behalf of the respondents. The claim of maintenance to Ramma, respondent No. 1 had been denied by the trial Magistrate primarily on the ground that stand of the wife that her marriage with Rajesh Batra was dissolved was yet to be established on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. Since this finding was not assailed by Ramma, respondent No. 1 by filing a criminal revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, nothing needs to be said in this regard. The fact remains that the stand of Sahil, respondent No. 2 that he had been taken in adoption was accepted on the basis of documents produced on record which prima facie supported the stand taken by the respondents. The fact remains that the stand of Sahil, respondent No. 2 that he had been taken in adoption was accepted on the basis of documents produced on record which prima facie supported the stand taken by the respondents. While considering the respective claims of the parties, the Court cannot overlook the fact that Section 125 of the Code has provided a quick remedy to protect the applicant against starvation and to enable him/her to tide over the difficulties faced by him/her. In the present case I find no justification to interfere in exercise of the power Under Section 482 of the Code and disturb the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court. This Court cannot overlook the fact that the Sessions Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Under Section 379(3) of the Code had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and second revision petition is barred. This is riot a case where after going through the findings of the Courts below, it can be said that the orders passed tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court or has resulted in failure of justice. The power vested Under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised in exceptional circumstances and with circumspection. Taking into account the totality of circumstances on record, no case for intervention of the Court is made out. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.