Union Territory Of J&K Through Ssp ... vs Zahoor Ahmad Sheikh And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 893 j&K/2

                                                   S. No. 61
                                                   Supplementary matter
      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                 AT SRINAGAR
                                                       CM No. 4513/2023
                                                       In CR No. 27/2023
                                                       CM No. 4514/2023
                                                     Caveat No. 1194/2023

Union Territory of J&K through SSP Railway Kashmir
                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                        Through:       Ms. Rekha Wagnoo, GA
                                       vice Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG.
      V/s
Zahoor Ahmad Sheikh and anr.                   ..... Respondent(s)
                     Through:      Ms. Barjis Firdous, Adv.
CORAM:
          Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge.

                                   ORDER

04.08.2023 CM No. 4513/2023:

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the

revision petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and

the delay of 371 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

CM disposed of.

CR No. 27/2023:

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 04.08.2022 passed by

Principal Judge Family Court, Srinagar to the extent it has issued

order against the petitioner in terms of the compromise arrived at

Page |2 CM No. 4513/2023 In CR No. 27/2023 CM No. 4514/2023 Caveat No. 1194/2023

2. Ms. Barjis Firdous, Advocate who is on caveat waives notice.

Caveat is accordingly disicharged.

3. Heard and considered.

4. It appears that a matrimonial dispute had arisen inter se between

respondents which resulted in filing of two petitions one by

respondent No. 2 against the respondent No. 1 under Section 488 of

Jammu and Kashmir Cr.PC for grant of maintenance and other a suit

for dissolution of marriage that was filed by respondent No. 1

against respondent No. 2. It seems that during the pendency of these

petitions before the Family court, Srinagar, a compromise was

arrived at between the parties and the same was placed before the

learned Family Court, Srinagar. One of the terms of the compromise

was that the wife shall withdraw all the complaints against the

husband before the petitioner and ADGP Railways, J&K as also

before Director General of Police, J&K. It was also agreed that the

wife shall facilitate in every respect for releasing withhold annual

increments and promotions in favour of the husband with

retrospective effect. It also appears that the husband was denied

promotion and annual increments because of the complaints filed by

the wife against him before the employer i.e, petitioner herein.

5. Learned Family court has taken note of the aforesaid covenants of

the compromise arrived at between the respondents herein, and Page |3 CM No. 4513/2023 In CR No. 27/2023 CM No. 4514/2023 Caveat No. 1194/2023

directed that the copies of the impugned judgment which has been

passed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the

respondents be forwarded to the petitioner and his superior officers

as also to Central Administrative Tribunal for information.

6. So far as the compromise arrived at between the respondents

(husband and wife) is concerned, there cannot be any dispute to the

fact that their litigation inter se has to come to an end on the basis of

mutually agreed terms but then the employer of the husband i.e, the

petitioner herein is not bound by what has been agreed upon by the

husband and the wife as it was not even party to the lis before the

Family court. Whatever action may have been taken by the

petitioner against respondent No. 1 was not subject matter of

adjudication before the Family court so as to invite any direction in

this regard from the said court. The parties may have entered into

compromise and they may have even forgiven each other for their

past acts but then the compromise arrived at between them is

binding between the parties to the compromise and not upon the

third parties like employer of the husband, or the Central

Administrative Tribunal.

7. Learned Family court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in

directing that the compromise deed and order passed thereon be

forwarded to the petitioner, his superior officers and the Central Page |4 CM No. 4513/2023 In CR No. 27/2023 CM No. 4514/2023 Caveat No. 1194/2023

Administrative Tribunal. If at all any follow up action has to be

taken on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, it

was for the parties to bring these facts to the notice of different

authorities.

8. In view of the discussion hereinbefore, the instant petition is allowed

and the impugned order to the extent it provides for sending the

copies of the compromise and the order to the petitioner and the

other authorities is set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner and

the other authorities are not bound by the impugned

order/compromise of the Family court and that they are at liberty to

take an independent view of the matter relating to the imposition of

penalty upon the husband.

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 04.08.2023 "Aasif"