HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Crl R No. 83/2025 CrlM No. 1657/2025 Rakesh Kumar Bhagat …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Satyam Arora, Advocate with Mr. Sachin Raina, Advocate vs Saflata Kumari .…Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER (11.09.2025) 01. Petitioner has moved this petition, under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, against the Order dated 02.09.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu, in case titled “Saflata Kumari & Anr. v/s Rakesh Kumar Bhagat” (File No. 106/2025), whereby, the Commanding Officer 62 BN BSF has been directed to deduct Rs. 20,000/- per month from the salary of the respondent-Rakesh Kumar Bhagat (petitioner herein), till further orders and deposit the same in the account of petitioner No. 1-Saflata Kumari (respondent herein). 02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has passed an order for the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- directing the DDO of the respondent therein to deduct an amount of Rs. 20,000/- every month from his salary. It is further submitted that the petitioner has paid whole of the amount to the respondents by making payments through his Serial No. 108 bank account and evidence of such payments is available with the petitioner. 03. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of this petition at this stage with a direction to the trial court to remit the matter for reconsideration. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the trial court has not considered the matter in its proper perspective and has overlooked the evidence with regard to payments made by the petitioner to the respondents, which is claimed to be evident from the bank receipts, placed on record. 04. This petition is thus disposed of at this stage with a direction to the Court below to consider the motion for reconsideration of the impugned order on the next date of hearing before it, and till then, the impugned is ordered to be kept in abeyance. 05. Under the aforestated circumstances, the instant petition is disposed of, accordingly, alongwith interim application(s). (MA CHOWDHARY) JUDGE Jammu 11.09.2025 Sapna Sapna Bamotra 2025.09.15 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu