A single judge of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held as follows,

From Paras 12-14, (On the point that second revision can not be filed in guise of Quash petition)

12. Though, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents has held that a subsequent Revision Petition cannot be filed under the garb of Section 482 of the Code, however, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a later case titled ‘Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra‟, reported as ‘(2009) 2 SCC 370’, while considering the question as to whether an application filed under Section 482 of the Code can be dismissed only because the Revision Petition has been dismissed by the Sessions Court, observed that even in cases where a second revision before the High Court after dismissal of the first one by the Court of Sessions is barred under Section 397(2) of the Code, the inherent power of the Court has been held to be available. While relying upon an earlier decision rendered in case titled ‘Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai‟, reported as ‘(2003) 6 SCC 675’, the Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that the inherent power of the High Court is not barred by the Statute, but has merely been saved thereunder and it was difficult to concede that the jurisdiction of the High Court would be held to be barred only because the revisional jurisdiction could also be availed of. The same view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Shakuntala Devi & Ors. v. Chamru Mahto & Anr.’, reported as ‘(2009) 3 SCC 310‟.
13. This Court had also taken a view in a case titled ‘Mushtaq Ahmad Mir &Ors. v. Mst. Khatija’, rendered in CRMC No. 197/2013, decided on 27th of June, 2022, that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code , is of wide amplitude and it cannot be excluded by the provisions of revision contained under Section 397 (3) of the Code and that merely because the Revision Petition, in the instant case, has been rejected by the learned Revisional Court, the High Court is not debarred from entertaining a Petition under Section 482 of the Code against the impugned Order passed by the learned Magistrate, if it finds that there has been miscarriage of justice or that the ends of justice would be secured by interfering in the Order passed by the learned trial Magistrate and that it would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. In view of above, though, the impugned Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate had been assailed in a Revision Petition filed before the Sessions Court at Pulwama, however, this Court is not debarred from entertaining an application under Section 482 of the Code invoking the inherent jurisdiction for the limited purpose of looking at it as to whether there has been miscarriage of justice or that the ends of justice would be secured by interfering in the Order passed by the learned Magistrate. The objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is thus turned down. It is, thus, held, for the aforesaid reasons, that the Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code is maintainable and cannot be said to be a subsequent Revision Petition.

From Para 15, (On overlapping jurisdiction)

15. Coming to the merits of the case, the impugned Orders have been challenged by the Petitioner, mainly, on the reasons that the learned Magistrate has not followed the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), whereby certain mandatory guidelines have been laid for the guidance of the Courts while exercising the overlapping jurisdiction for grant of maintenance and to avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings. On the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that successive claims for maintenance under different statutes are maintainable and the Court, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceedings, has made it obligatory on the part of the applicant to disclose the previous proceedings and the order passed therein, in the subsequent proceedings and, if the order passed in such previous proceedings requires any variation or modification, it would be required to be done in the same proceedings.

From Para 19, (No evidence to be considered during Interim proceedings)

19. It is worthwhile to mention here that, at the time of granting of the interim maintenance, evidence is not available before the Court and the Court has to apply mind keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in order to fix the quantum of maintenance.

From Para 25,

25. In so far as the directions passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra), it appears that both the Courts below have considered the case in the light of the directions passed by the Apex Court when successive claims for maintenance were made under overlapping jurisdiction of Section 125 of the Code and the D. V. Act. As regards the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the directions contained in Paragraph No. 128 (3) that, if the order passed in previous proceeding(s) requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceedings. It appears that this direction has been misunderstood as the order impugned passed by the Magistrate under any of the jurisdictions can be modified or varied by the same Court and not by any other Court. The only aspect of the case required to be addressed by the subsequent Court is that the maintenance granted earlier has to be kept in view to assess for further payment of maintenance, if any required for the sustenance of the destitute woman or children.