Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 181 (JK)

GULZAR AHMAD SHEIKH v. MST. TAJA

2018-03-23

M.K.HANJURA

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.K. Hanjura, J. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Some dispute arose in between them which coerced the respondent to file a petition under section 488 Cr .P.C. in the court of learned Additional Special Mobile Magistrate Beerwah, seeking maintenance. The learned Magistrate disposed of the petition on 28.02.2017, on the basis of a compromise. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner assailed the same in a revision filed before the court of learned Principal District and Session Judge, Budgam. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Budgam, dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it is devoid of merit. 2. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Additional Special Mobile Magistrate Beerwah, and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Budgam, the petitioner has filed this petition under section 561-A Cr. P.C. before this court seeking the indulgence of this Court in quashing the same. 3. Heard and considered. 4. It will be profitable to quote hereunder, the relevant extracts of the order of the learned Principal District and Session Judge, Budgam that have a bearing on the subject: "It transpires from the record of the case that the petitioner under section 488 cr. P. C. was laid before Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Beerwah on 07.02.2017. The petitioner was put to notice, who caused personal appearance and on his behalf Mr. A.R. Wani Advocate also caused appearance. On 28.02.2017, matter was listed for hearing and on that day the petitioner herein frankly conceded before the Ld. Trial Magistrate that he is ready to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent @ 4500/- P.M. and is ready to keep the respondent in his company. Submission of the petitioner was recorded by the Ld. Trial Magistrate and to support this submission, signature of the petitioner has also been taken on the margin of order. Based on this concession made by petitioner herein, the petition under section 488 CrPC, 1973 has been disposed of. Ld. Trial Magistrate has ordered the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs. 4500/- P.M. in favour of the respondent. It is apparent from the record that the order under challenge is a constant order, passed by the Ld. Trial Court on the concession allowed by the petitioner herein. Ld. Trial Magistrate has ordered the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs. 4500/- P.M. in favour of the respondent. It is apparent from the record that the order under challenge is a constant order, passed by the Ld. Trial Court on the concession allowed by the petitioner herein. Both the parties have agreed for the disposal of the 488 CrPC petition in that the petitioner herein has agreed to pay Rs. 4500/- P.M. to the respondent. There being consent of the petitioner for disposal of the 488 CrPC. Petition, it cannot be challenged through the medium of instant Revision Petition. Otherwise also there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Revision Petition is held to be meritless and is, accordingly, dismissed. Case is disposed of. File be consigned to records on compilation. Record of the Ld. Trial Court be sent back along with the copy of this order". 5. The order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Budgam, spells out the reasons that motivated the learned Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Beerwah, to pass the order for the grant of maintenance @ Rs. 4500 per month in favour of the respondent. The petitioner out of his free will and volition conceded before the learned trial Magistrate in the presence of his advocate that he is ready to pay the maintenance as detailed hereinabove in favour of the respondent. The petitioner cannot now turn around and change colours like a chameleon by stating that he has no knowledge about the order and that he has not agreed to pay this amount of maintenance in favour of the respondent wife. The order of the learned Magistrate depicts that the same was recorded by the learned trial Magistrate after both the petitioner and the respondent agreed to arrive at a settlement and both of them appended their signatures on the margin of the order in token of the settlement recorded by the magistrate. Therefore, the petition of the petitioner has no substance in it. It merits dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.