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
[ad_1]
Source link