Masooda Banoo vs Sirajuddin Shah on 11 July, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

Masooda Banoo vs Sirajuddin Shah on 11 July, 2025

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                                 S. No.105
                                                                 Suppl. 1

,,,   HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                              AT SRINAGAR


                              CRM(M) No.388/2025

MASOODA BANOO
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)

                                      Through: Mr.Arshad Andrabi, Advocate.
                       V/s


SIRAJUDDIN SHAH
                                                         ... ..Respondent(s)

                                       Through : None

CORAM:
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

                                     ORDER

Dt:11.07.2025

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 14.06.2025

passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, whereby

revision petition against order dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama has been dismissed.

2. Heard and considered.

3. It appears that a petition under Section 144 BNSS came to

be filed by one Ms Ayat Jan (hereafter ‘the girl’) through her

grandfather (the respondent herein) before the Court of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama. The petition was filed

against the petitioner herein, who happens to be the mother of the

girl. It was pleaded in the said petition that father of the girl was a

Government employee who got killed by unidentified gunmen in
the year 2002 when she was only a few years old. It was further

pleaded that after the death of the father, the petitioner herein,

who happens to be mother of the girl got a job of the Government

employee on compassionate basis. It was alleged that the

petitioner left the house of her in-laws and started living at her

parental home, as a result of which, the girl was brought up by her

grandfather, the respondent herein. The girl accordingly claimed

maintenance from her mother, the petitioner herein.

4. It seems that the petitioner herein, after submitting the

objections to the petition filed by the girl, chose not to participate

in the proceedings and learned trial Magistrate passed order dated

07.11.2024, whereby the petitioner herein was directed to pay

maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month to the girl.

5. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the petitioner

by way of a revision petition before learned Principal Sessions

Judge, Pulwama, who vide impugned order dated 14.06.2025

proceeded to dismiss the revision petition.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the

grounds that the same has been passed on the basis of suppression

and misrepresentation of facts. It has been contended that earlier

applications of the girl were already rejected by the Courts below

and this fact has been suppressed. It has been further contended

that the petitioner was thrown out of her matrimonial house by her

CRM(M) No.388/2025 2|P a g e
father-in-law and that she has been appointed as a guardian of the

girl by the Court, as such, she is entitled to custody of the girl. It

has been also contended that the respondent has no authority to

file the petition on behalf of the girl.

7. So far as the relationship between the petitioner and the girl

is concerned, the same is not in dispute. It is nowhere pleaded in

the petition that the girl is presently living with the petitioner. It is

interesting to note that the petitioner while filing revision petition

against order dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Pulwama has impleaded her father-in-law, namely

Sirajuddin Shah as respondent and not the girl in whose favour the

order of interim maintenance has been passed by the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate on the basis of petition filed by the girl

through her grandfather namely Sirajuddin. Even in the present

petition the girl has not been made party and instead her

grandfather who happens to be father-in-law of the petitioner has

been made party.

8. It is correct that the petitioner is armed with the judgment

dated 29.12.2007 passed by Principal District Judge, Pulwama

whereby she has been appointed as guardian to the person of the

girl and Shri Sirajuddin, the respondent herein has been directed

to handover custody of the girl to the petitioner, but as has been

noted by the learned revisional Court, the petitioner has never

CRM(M) No.388/2025 3|P a g e
filed execution petition seeking execution of order passed by

learned District Judge, Pulwama. As a consequence of this, the

minor daughter of the petitioner continues to be with her

grandfather who has been impleaded as respondent herein. In the

face of this situation, the petitioner, who happens to be the mother

of the girl, having secured her appointment on compassionate

basis by giving an undertaking that she will look after the minor

girl, is legally and morally obliged to pay maintenance to the girl.

9. So far as contention of the petitioner that this Court in

WP(C) No. 1845/2024 had directed the employer of the petitioner

not to deduct any amount of salary of the petitioner is concerned,

the said direction pertains to sharing of salary with father-in-law

and not with respect to sharing of salary with the minor daughter.

The said order would, therefore, not come in the way of extending

a direction to the petitioner to pay maintenance to her minor

daughter.

10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to

interfere in the well reasoned order passed by learned reivisonal

Court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.

(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE

SRINAGAR
11.07.2025
Sarveeda Nissar

Sarveeda Nissar CRM(M) No.388/2025 4|P a g e
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
every page at bottom left side
15.07.2025 14:34