Dismissed

Manjeet Singh v. Sonia

J&K HC9 Jul 2021CRM(M)/70/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an ex-parte maintenance order maintained by the trial court and upheld by the revisional court under Section 482 Cr.PC. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that questions of fact regarding sufficient cause and negligence preclude intervention in inherent jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Dismissal does not affect the petitioner's right to seek setting aside of the ex-parte order from the trial court without limitation.

Manjeet Singh Vs Sonia — Maintenance and Alimony | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR

¶2

(THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)

¶3

Reserved on : 28.06.2021 Pronounced on : 09.07.2021

¶4

CRM(M) 70/2021 CrlM(206/2021) CrlM(657/2021)

¶5

MANJEET SINGH

¶6

…Petitioner(s)

¶7

Through: Mr. Arif Javaid Khan, Adv.

V/s

SONIA

…Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Zahoor A. Shah, Adv.

¶12

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The petitioner, in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, seeks quashment of the order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the court of learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar (“revisional court”) in Revision Petition titled Manjeet Singh Vs. Mst. Sonia , whereby the revisional court has refused to interfere with the order of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st class-Forest Magistrate (“the trial court”) dated 04.07.2017 in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

¶15

It may be noted that the trial court vide its order dated 04.07.2017 decided the application filed by the respondent under Section 488 Cr.PC in ex-parte and directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the petition.

¶16

¶17

The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of the trial court as well as the revisional court and has assailed the same primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not given the adequate opportunity to defend his case and was proceeded ex-parte by the trial court despite the fact that he was prevented by sufficient cause viz. his service in the Indian Army. It is submitted that the petitioner is serving in the Indian Army and, therefore, is hardly in a position to appear before the court on each and every date of hearing. It is also submitted that the petitioner had entrusted his case to his Advocate, who for the reasons best known to him, did not defend him and the petitioner was accordingly proceeded ex-parte by the trial court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has cast iron case to defend, in that, the respondent is neither his legally wedded wife nor does he owe any obligation to maintain her. He further submits that all these defenses had been taken by the petitioner in his objections filed before the trial court but the same were ignored only because of the reason that there was nobody to represent the petitioner.

¶19

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner even argued the matter on merits to persuade this Court to interfere with the ex-parte order of maintenance passed by the trial court and upheld by the revisional court.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner to assail the impugned order hinge purely on the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court

¶21

¶22

in its inherent jurisdiction. May be the petitioner has a case to seek setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings but for that the petitioner ought to approach the trial court. The petitioner instead of filing the application for seeking to set aside the ex-parte order of maintenance first filed the revision petition and then came to this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction, which course, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, was not available to him.

¶23

What prevented the petitioner from contesting the petition; whether he was prevented by sufficient cause to appear before the court and defend the petition; whether the counsel engaged by him was negligent in pursuing his case; are all questions of fact which are to be pleaded and proved by the petitioner before the appropriate court.

¶24

Be that as it is, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order impugned, accordingly, this petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner for filing appropriate application for seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order of maintenance before the trial court. Should the petitioner file such application before the trial court, the time spent before the revisional court as well as this Court in this petition shall eschew from limitation.

¶25

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE

¶26

Srinagar 09.07.2021 Muzammil.Q

¶27

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

¶28

MUZAMIL QADIR 2021.07.12 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manjeet Singh v. Sonia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Singh v. Sonia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rashid Bhat Vs State through SHO Police Station Lalpora, Kupwara

Union Territory of J and K through Principal Secretary, Home Department and Ors. Vs Jehangir Ahmad Ganie Alias Jana Logi through His Cousin Nazir Ahmad Mir

Nazir Ahmad Mir and Anr. Vs State of J Nd K and Ors. (Home Department)

Javid Ahmad Reshi and Anr. Vs Government through Police Station Devsar (Home Department)

Rehana Qasim Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Police Station Lal Bazar (Home Department)

Rattan Singh and Ors. Vs SHO Police Station Tral (Home Department)