Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Fayaz Ahmad Mir vs Mst. Parveena Akhtar on 25 October, 2024
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
Page 1 of 3
S. No. 37
Regular list
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 248/2023
FAYAZ AHMAD MIR ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. W. M. Shah, Adv.
Vs.
Mst. PARVEENA AKHTAR ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. R. A. Bhat, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
25.10.2024
(Oral):-
1. The petitioner herein has invoked the inherent power of this Court
enshrined under section 482 Cr.P.C ( Now 528) BNSS for quashing order
dated 16.04.2022 passed by Principle District Judge Pulwama in case titled
as "Fayaz Ahmad Mira vs Parveena Akhter" including Order dated
31.12.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Pulwama (for short
'the Magistrate') in case titled as "Parveena Akhter vs Fayaz Ahmad Mir
& Ors".
2. Facts emerging from the record would reveal that the respondent herein had
maintained an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act 2005, besides others against the petitioner
herein stating therein that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein
and has been subjected to domestic violence by her husband-petitioner
herein as also his other relatives, wherein, the Magistrate in terms of order
dated 31.12.2020 granted Rs. 4000/- as monthly interim maintenance in her
favour from the date of institution of the application with the further
direction to the petitioner herein to provide an accommodation to the
applicant respondent herein, and, in the event of his inability to provide
such accommodation, to pay a further amount of Rs 2500/-PM in
alternative thereof.
3. Aggrieved of the said order dated 31.12.2020, the non-applicant/petitioner
herein filed a revision petition before the Principle District Judge, Pulwama.
4. The respondent herein had also filed yet another proceedings for
maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C on 07.04.2021 claiming
maintenance therein as well from the petitioner before the Court of
Additional Special Mobile Magistrate Awantipora, wherein, the said Court
in terms of order dated 25.09.2021 granted an interim maintenance of Rs
5000/- to the applicant respondent herein payable by the non-applicant/
petitioner herein. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 25th September
2021, the petitioner herein preferred a Revision Petition before the Court of
Principle District Judge Pulwama on 1st November 2021 and challenged
the said order primarily on the premise that the respondent herein was not
entitled to an additional maintenance by filing successive petition for
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C while concealing the filing of earlier
maintenance proceedings under the Act of 2005 and grant of maintenance
therein the said proceedings.
5. The Revisional Court however, in terms of Order dated 16th April 2022
dismissed the revision petition holding that the interim maintenance granted
in both proceedings to the respondent herein is just and fair in order to meet
the basic necessity of life, and that the successive maintenance proceeding
filed by the respondent herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C in essence, is a
proceeding filed for enhancement of the amount of maintenance granted
earlier to her under the provisions of the Act of 2005. The Revisional Court
having over all view of the facts and circumstances of the case in much as
the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in cases tilted as
"Rajnesh vs Neha & Anr" reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 held that the
successive maintenance granted to the respondent herein is not the violation
of the parameters set out by the Supreme Court in the Judgement supra.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances inasmuch as the case
set up by the petitioner herein inasmuch as the position of law laid down by
the Apex Court in the Judgment supra, this Court is not inclined to exercise
inherent power in view of the concurrent orders of maintenance passed by
the Courts below, in that, this Court while exercising inherent power is
neither exercising a Revisional nor an Appellate power.
7. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
25.10.2024
Hilal Ahmad
Whether the Order is reportable? Yes/No.
Whether the Order is speaking? Yes/No.
