Dismissed

Bholi Bibi and Others v. Mushtaq Ahmed and Another

J&K HC26 Dec 2022Crl R/20/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition challenging an order reducing interim maintenance from Rs. 14,500 to Rs. 10,500, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition. The bench held that the reduced amount was not insufficient and that the trial court must decide maintenance on merits after considering evidence.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; interim maintenance approved at Rs. 10,500 per month.

Bholi Bibi and Others Vs Mushtaq Ahmed and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | J&K HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIRAND LADAKH ATJAMMU

¶2

Crl (R) 20/2022

¶3

Bholi Bibi and others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Through:- Mr. Sheikh Altaf Hussain, Advocate

¶6

v/s

¶7

Mushtaq Ahmed and another

¶8

.....Respondent(s)

¶9

Through:Mr. Harshwardhan Gupta, Advocate

¶10

Coram:

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

¶12

ORDE R

¶13

1. Order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional Mobile Magistrate, Reasi ( for brevity ‘trial Magistrtate’) in File No. 78/Cr.Miss, titled ‘ Bholi Bibi and others vs. Mushtaq Ahmed and another , whereby the trial Magistrate has awarded interim maintenance @ Rs. 14,500/- p.m to the petitioners herein was challenged in revision by the

¶14

respondent-husband herein before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi ( for brevity ‘Revisional Court’). The revision petition came to be allowed and the interim maintenance granted @ Rs. 14,500/- by the trial Magistrate was reduced to Rs. 10,500/-. The said order passed by the Revisional Court reducing the interim maintenance from Rs. 14,500/- to Rs. 10,500/-has been called in question in the instant petition.

¶15

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner-Bholi Bibi filed petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

¶16

¶17

Crl R 20/2022

¶18

Domestic Violence, Act (for brevity ‘Act’) before Trial Court. An application under Section 23 of the Act was also filed for the grant of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month besides alternate accommodation or monthly rent @ Rs. 3000/- p.m. The application for grant of interim maintenance was considered by the trial Court vide order dated 27.08.2021 following order was passed:-

¶19

“For all that has been said and discussed herein above, since the main application is likely to take some time while its adjudication is pending, applicant is on affidavit and the contents of application prima facie does disclose the incidents of domestic violence. Therefore, this application to an extent of grant of an interim maintenance is allowed. Accordingly, as an interim relief and after taking into consideration expenses that may be incurred to lead a regular decent life, it is directed that respondent no. 01 shall pay 1/3d of his admitted salary income i.e. Rupees 5000/- each to his two minor children and Rupees 4500/- to applicant, a total sum of Rupees 14, 500/- to applicant from the date of this application until the final disposal of the main case.

¶20

It is made clear that nothing stated herein above shall be construed as an expression.”

¶21

3. The trial Court while dealing with the application for grant of maintenance had at the stage of notice granted interim maintenance @ 14,500/- p.m. The said order was passed without putting the other side on notice or before inviting objections from the other side. The said order was challenged before the Revisional Court by the respondents herein and the

¶22

Revisional Court while dealing with the revision has reduced the interim maintenance while observing as under:-

¶23

¶24

Crl R 20/2022

¶25

“Only the point for consideration herein whether the amount of interim relief granted to the petitioners (respondents herein) by the court below is appropriate keeping in view the monthly income of the appellant as CRPF official which is Rs. 43500/- monthly. At the same time the appellant has also take care of his parents and is under obligations to maintain not only them but also the petitioners/respondents herein. In the circumstances of the case the interim relief to the tune of Rs. 3500/- per month to each respondents would have been appropriate and maintenance granted by the court below seems to be a bit exorbitant. Accordingly appeal is admitted and interim relief granted by the court below is modified to Rs. 3500/- per month to each of respondent (total Rs. 10,500/-) to which the respondent are entitled from the date of application. Ordered accordingly. The copy of this order be transmitted to the court below for information along with the record of the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of and be consigned to records after its due compilation.”

¶26

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondent No. 1 is a CRPF official and his monthly income is only Rs. 43,500/hence, the order of interim maintenance has been passed in a casual and mechanical way.

¶27

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

¶28

on file.

¶29

6. The trial Magistrate at the time of presentation of the petition, before putting the other side on notice has granted the interim maintenance to the petitioners @ 14,500/-. The purpose of granting interim maintenance at the initial stage is to make a provision for the petitioner-wife for her

¶30

¶31

Crl R 20/2022

¶32

sustainability during the pendency of such proceedings or till her rights are determined, so that she is not subjected to starvation, therefore, a reasonable amount is required to be fixed for interim maintenance. At the time of the allowing such interim maintenance the defence of the respondent is not before the Court, may be the defence is such which will make the petitioner-wife not entitled to the maintenance.

¶33

7. In the present case, the respondent-husband is a CRPF official and getting Rs. 43,500/- as salary per month and not only petitioners, but he has also to take care of his parents and younger brother, so in such a situation at the initial stage, the petitioner was to be provided a reasonable amount as interim maintenance. The trial Magistrate has before hearing the other side has granted Rs. 14,500/- as interim maintenance, which is on a higher side. The defence of the respondent-husband is yet to be considered, therefore, the amount awarded by the Revisional Court in no way can be said to be insufficient amount. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.12.2021, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. However,

¶34

before parting with this order it is needless to mention that any observations made herein are purely for the purpose of deciding the instant petition and not an order on the merits. The maintenance is to be decided by the trial Court as per the evidence produced before it.

¶35

(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE

¶36

Jammu 26.12.2022 Bir

¶37

¶38

Crl R 20/2022

Bholi Bibi and Others v. Mushtaq Ahmed and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bholi Bibi and Others v. Mushtaq Ahmed and Another

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

Bashir Ahmad Najar and Ors. Vs Government of J and K and Ors. (Public Works Department)

Umer Farooq Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Public Works Department)

Mohammad Amin Bhat Vs Aatika and Anr.

Babita Devi Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th SHO Police Station Kishtwar and Others

Lucky Sharma and Others Vs U T of J and K Th SHO Police Station Nowshera

Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs State Th.Sho.P/S.Women Cell and Anr.