Serial No. 69 SUPPLEMENTARY CAUSE LIST-I HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 360/2025 CM(5406/2025) Mst. Zareefa And Ors. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. A. Wani, Advocate. Vs. Mohammad Mudasir Mir. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Aabid Hamid, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE. ORDER 16.10.2025 01. The institution of this petition came to take place at the instance of the petitioners against the respondent who is husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of two minor children i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. 02. The petitioners had initiated the proceedings for maintenance under section 488 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, 1938 on file No. 42/Meem on 14.06.2010 against the respondent before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Handwara which came to be finally decided on 13.02.2014 wherein the petitioner No. 1 came to be held entitled to maintenance of Rs. 1700/- per month and the two children i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, came to be held entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs. 1300/- and Rs. 1000/- respectively. 03. The cumulative maintenance liability, thus, fastened upon the respondent was Rs. 4000/- payable in favour of the petitioners. The maintenance amount of Rs. 4000/-was payable with effect from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 14.06.2010 and obviously generated arrears also besides recurring liability. 04. Later on, in a purported compromise made before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Handwara, the maintenance payable in favor of the two children was enhanced to Rs. 6000/- each per month. 05. The petitioners initiated execution proceedings with respect to original order dated 13.02.2014 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Handwara. 06. It is submitted by the respondent that in the Lok Adalat proceedings held on 31.05.2025 between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent, the matter was settled as per award dated 31.05.2025. 07. Even if this lok adalat award is held to be true and corrected being outcome of an agreement between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent, still that is not binding on the two children i.e. petitioner No. 2 and 3 who are well entitled to claim their maintenance as per the order dated 13.02.2014 as well as the compromise effected before CJM, Handwara. 08. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Handwara to expedite the execution proceedings, if any, initiated by the petitioner against the respondent. 09. Disposed of. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 16.10.2025 <HAMID=