He directed that the main petition itself should be proceeded with and disposed of by the learned Magistrate expeditiously, preferably within four months from that date.
The orders of the High Court are challenged by the appellant.
The appellant challenged the order of the learned Magistrate by filing a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court.
By subsequent order dated 16.11.2007, the time for disposal was extended upto 31.1.2008.
The appellant companytended that the sum of Rs.5,000/ per month was inadequate and the interim maintenance should be higher.
In the said proceedings, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 26.6.2006 directed the first respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/ per month to the appellant.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by the impugned order dated 9.7.2007 companysidered the matter in detail and found numberreason to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate fixing Rs.5,000/ per month as interim maintenance.
The appellant filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance.
The appellant is the minor son of first respondent and Dr. Poonam Khanna.
While the appellants mother claims that the appellant is mentally challenged, the respondent denies it.
Leave granted.
Heard the parties.
He is represented by his mother.
