Mohammad Amin Rather vs Meema And Others

Instant application seeking extension of time for annexing/ depositing the requisite court fee with the petition, in view of the grounds detailed out

therein, is allowed. The petitioner shall deposit the requisite court fee with the Registry of this Court within a period of one week from the date

Registry starts working normally.

CrlM disposed of.

Impugned in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an order dated 22nd of March, 2021 passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Bandipora, whereby order of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sumbal (the Trial Magistrate), dated 19th of October, 2019, has

been modified and the respondents have been held entitled to a maintenance of Rs.6000/, Rs.7000, Rs.7000/ and Rs.3000/ respectively.

Briefly stated, the facts as are gatherable from the impugned order are that the respondent No.1 along with her three minor children have instituted

an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance against the petitioner herein before the Trial Magistrate,

seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/ from the petitioner. It is claimed that the relations between the petitioner and respondent No.1 are

strained and the two are living separately. The minor children i.e. respondents 2 to 4 are living with their mother i.e. respondent No.1. The petitioner is

a Selection Grade Constable and receiving a gross salary of Rs.62,572/ with some deductions on account of GPF etc. It is alleged that the petitioner

has abandoned respondents and has not paid even a single penny towards their maintenance. It is in this backdrop, the respondents have filed an

application for maintenance before the learned Trial Magistrate.

On being put on notice, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Magistrate and fairly conceded his liability to maintain the respondents. The Trial

Magistrate, taking note of the income of the petitioner and other relevant factors, awarded a sum of Rs.8000/ per month to respondent No.1,

Rs.10,000/ to respondent No.2, Rs.8000/ to respondent No.3 and Rs.4000/ to respondent No.4, total Rs.30,000/ as

Aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the order of Trial Magistrate dated 19th of October, 2020, before the Revisional Court of Sessions Judge,

Bandipora. The Revisional Court after hearing both sides and taking into consideration that apart from respondents, petitioner had other responsibilities

to discharge, modified the order of maintenance passed by the Trial Magistrate and awarded Rs.6000/ per month to respondent No.1, Rs.7000/ each

to respondents 2 and 3 and Rs.3000/ to respondent No.4, total Rs.23000. This has been done by the learned Sessions Judge, Bandipora, vide order

impugned dated 22nd of March, 2021.

The petitioner is still dissatisfied and aggrieved. He has assailed the order of learned Sessions Judge, Bandipora dated 22nd of March, 2021, in this

petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested by virtue of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned order has been

assailed by the petitioner, primarily, on the ground that neither the learned Trial Magistrate nor the Revisional Court has taken into consideration that

besides the respondents, the petitioner has old parents to support and, therefore, grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.23,000/ per month is highly

excessive and exorbitant. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that one of the respondents i.e. respondent No.4 is staying with the petitioner and,

therefore, no maintenance could have been awarded in his favour through her mother, the respondent No.1

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that the order impugned, which is well- reasoned and in

consonance with the material on record, does not call for interference by exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court by virtue of Section 482

Cr. P. C. It is not in dispute that the relation between the petitioner and respondent No.1 are strained and the respondent No.1 along with her three

minor children is living separately. The petitioner has not disputed this position. As a matter of fact, the petitioner, when he appeared before the Trial

Magistrate, acknowledged his liability to maintain the respondents. Neither before the learned Trial Magistrate nor before the Revisional Court it was

ever claimed by the petitioner that one of the children i.e. respondent No.4 was staying with him. Learned Trial Magistrate, after taking note of the

income of the petitioner and his liability, granted Rs.30,000/ per month as maintenances to the respondents. The petitioner was not satisfied that the

quantum of maintenance granted by the learned Trial Magistrate and, therefore, filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, Bandipora. The

learned Sessions Court, Bandipora, took into account the other liabilities of the petitioner and reduced the quantum of maintenance from Rs.30,000/ to

Rs.23,000/.

The petitioner does not dispute that he is a Selection Grade Constable serving in the J&K Police nor does he dispute his monthly income. It is also

not disputed by the petitioner that he has not been maintaining his wife and three minor children. If that be the position, the award of maintenance of

Rs.30,000/ by the Trial Magistrate, which is reduced to Rs.23,000/ by the learned Sessions Judge, Bandipora, cannot be said to be either excessive or

exorbitant. In view of the admitted position with regard to neglect of the respondents and the total income of the petitioner, the impugned order was

the best order that could have been passed.

I find no legal infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. This petition is, therefore, found to be without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along

with connected application.