Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 564 (JK)

Vijay Kumar v. Darshana Devi

2010-11-11

Aftab H.Saikia

body2010
1. Heard Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. O. P. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The order dated March 18, 2008, passed by learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate, Electricity) Jammu (for short, `the learned Magistrate’), in File no. 394/Miscellaneous, directing to issue warrant of attachment of salary of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 3400/- per month and to send the same to the Commanding Officer of the petitioner for execution of order to pay interim maintenance to the respondents, has been assailed by this criminal revision. 3. For the sake of convenience, the interlocutory order dated 18.3.2008 under challenge may be reproduced as under:- "The respondent Vijay Kumar has been ordered to pay Rs. 3400/- as interim maintenance per month to the petitioners vide order of this Court 18.11.2007 till the disposal of the main petition. This is a petition for enforcement of the order passed by this Court to which the other side has filed objections also. Heard. Perused the record. The respondent has not paid even a single penny to the petitioners since the order of interim maintenance was passed. The petitioners 2 to 4 are minors and are school going. The respondent has reiterated what has been stated in the objections to the main petition as well as to the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance which already has been disposed off. These objections cannot be gone into now again while enforcing the order of the Court. The very purpose of grant of interim maintenance shall be frustrated in case of delay in enforcement of the order. The petition is, therefore, put to execution. Admittedly, the respondent is an employee of the ITBP. Let warrant of attachment of salary of the respondent to the extent of Rs. 3400/- per month be issued against the Respondent and the same be sent to the Commanding Officer of the Respondent for execution. Put up awaiting the execution of the order on 09.04.2008." 4. Admittedly, the order assailed is an interlocutory order which has been passed during the pendency of the main petition. 5. The forceful arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing both the parties have been given due consideration and the impugned order has also been meticulously perused. 6. Put up awaiting the execution of the order on 09.04.2008." 4. Admittedly, the order assailed is an interlocutory order which has been passed during the pendency of the main petition. 5. The forceful arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing both the parties have been given due consideration and the impugned order has also been meticulously perused. 6. It appears that in this impugned order, the learned Magistrate observed that the petitioner was already ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 3400/- as interim maintenance per month to the respondents vide order dated 18.11.2007 passed by the same Court. It is stated at Bar that order dated 18.11.2007 was challenged before the competent forum and the same was dismissed and, accordingly, order dated 18.11.2007 directing to pay an amount of Rs. 3400/- per month to the respondents attained its finality. 7. Given facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the learned Magistrate found that despite order to pay an amount of Rs. 3400/- as an interim maintenance per month to the respondents by order dated 18.11.2007 by that Court, the petitioner had not paid any single penny to the respondents. At the same time, it was also put on record that respondent nos. 2 to 4 are school going minor children. Under such circumstances, for non-payment of the amount, as directed, for interim maintenance, the learned Magistrate issued the warrant of attachment of salary of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 3400/- per month with a direction to send the same to the Commanding Officer of the petitioner for execution. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion that no illegality and irregularity and or any jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Magistrate in passing the above interlocutory order. 9. Consequently, this Court finds that this revision petition is bereft of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. Any amount deposited by the petitioner with the Registry in terms of interim order March 27, 2008 of this Court shall be released by the Registry to the respondents, particularly, respondent no. 1, the wife of the petitioner and the mother of respondent nos. 2 to 4 on her proper identification by her engaged counsel, Mr. O.P. Thakur immediately. 11. Interim order passed earlier shall stand vacated.