S. No. 73 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No. 33/2024 Abdul Hamid Rather …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rouf Ahmad Parray, Advocate Vs. Mymoona Bano and Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohammad Yawar Hussain Dar, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 17.11.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Respondent No.1 is the wife and Respondent No.2 is the minor daughter of the petitioner. Both respondents had approached the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Budgam, by filing an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking grant of maintenance on the ground that the petitioner had neglected and refused to maintain them. 3. In the petition before the Trial Court, it was alleged that after marriage, the behaviour of the petitioner became rude and abusive and that the respondent- wife was subjected to maltreatment, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents, where she has been residing for the last twelve years. It was further alleged that the petitioner has not provided any maintenance to her or the minor child, resulting in hardship and starvation. The petitioner is stated to be a carpet weaver earning about Rs. 40,000/- per month. 4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the learned Trial Court, as an interim arrangement, passed an order granting interim maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month in favour of each of the respondents (wife and daughter). The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam, by way of a revision petition, which came to be dismissed on 20.11.2023. 5. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking setting aside of both the orders passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Budgam and as well as by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. The petitioner submits that the respondent-wife refused to perform her matrimonial obligations so he had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and despite his offer to resume the matrimonial relationship, she refused to join his company. It is also pleaded that he is suffering from ailments, is unable to earn sufficiently, and has to bear huge medical expenses for his treatment. It is further urged that the impugned orders were passed without hearing him. 7. The relationship between the parties is undisputed. Respondent No.1, Mymoona Bano, is admittedly the wife of the petitioner, and Respondent No.2, Mahiya Jan, is their minor daughter. Being the husband and father, it is the statutory obligation of the petitioner to maintain them so that they are not left to destitution or vagrancy. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide relief to dependents who are unable to maintain themselves. 8. The plea that the petitioner is unable to maintain the respondents on account of his alleged illness and meagre means cannot absolve him of his obligation to maintain his minor daughter. Further, the question whether the respondent-wife has sufficient cause to reside separately and claim maintenance is a matter of fact, which is required to be adjudicated upon by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence. Until such adjudication, the respondent-wife cannot be denied interim maintenance. The entitlement of the minor child to maintenance is, in any event, absolute. 9. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision petition, has assigned cogent reasons which do not warrant interference. Likewise, the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granting interim maintenance does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 10. For the foregoing reasons, no ground is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 17.11.2025 Shabroz