HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No.846/2021 Shakeel Ahmed aged 36 years S/O Bashir Ahmed R/O Village Gulpur Tehsil Haveli, District Poonch. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate. Vs Kaneez Akhter D/O Mohd. Sadiq R/O Village Timra Tehsil Mandi, District Poonch. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Shakoor A Malik, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER 07.02.2025 01. Vide order dated 27.05.2024, this petition had been ordered to be listed along with CRM(M) No. 845/2021, however, that petition is stated to have been disposed of earlier, as such, this petition-CRM(M) No. 846/2021 is taken up for consideration today. 02. Through the medium of the above titled petition moved under Section 482 read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks quashment of the judgments and orders dated 26.08.2021 and 04.06.2012, 2 CRM(M) No. 846/2021 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch in file No. 79/Misc titled “Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Kaneez Akhter” decided on 26.08.2021 whereunder petition under section 489 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner for cancellation/modification of order dated 04.06.2012 granting maintenance in favour of the respondent @ Rs. 2,000/- per month has been rejected and instead vide order dated 26.08.2021 passed in another case titled “Kaneez Akhter and Adal Qureshi Vs. Shakeel Ahmed”, the already granted maintenance to the respondent has been enhanced from Rs. 3,500/- per month to Rs. 6,500/- per month. The impugned judgments/orders have been assailed on various grounds. 03. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has instructions not to file any pleadings and the matter can be considered for final disposal, otherwise, also. This is how with the consensus of learned counsel for both sides this petition is taken up for final consideration. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was husband of the respondent, however, he had divorced her and had contracted second marriage; that the respondent had been granted maintenance vide order dated 04.06.2012 in a consensual order @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. However, after the divorce, he had moved an application under Section 489 CrPC to recall the order granting 3 CRM(M) No. 846/2021 maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent for the reason that he had divorced the respondent, as such, after divorce she was not entitled to receive maintenance from the petitioner. 05. He has further argued that the court below unmindful of it that the respondent was not entitled to receive maintenance from her ex-husband, rejected the application and instead vide order dated 26.08.2021 enhanced the aggregate maintenance granted to the respondent and son of the parties, from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 6,500/-, as such, he has questioned both the orders seeking their quashment. 06. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner and the respondent have again entered into a compromise during the pendency of this petition, as such, this petition has been rendered infructuous in view of the development. He has produced a photocopy of the order passed in the Execution Petition before the court below, wherein it has been stated that the parties have entered into a compromise subject to the terms and conditions of the compromise with regard to payment of the maintenance and its arrears; that this petition, as such, has been rendered infructuous. 07. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that he is not aware of this development and suggests that appropriate orders be passed. 4 CRM(M) No. 846/2021 08. In view of the development made with regard to some compromise between the parties, particularly with regard to payment of arrears of maintenance and the monthly maintenance, it will be proper for the parties to decide the matter either at their own in terms of any compromise reached between them, or with the intervention of the local court as such, this petition does not require to be decided on merits. 09. Learned counsel of the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner be granted liberty to work out his remedies before the court below, in case he is aggrieved further. 10. Be that as it may, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the court below, and in case he approaches the trial court, the matter shall be decided, in accordance with law. 11. Interim direction, if any shall stand vacated. (M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE JAMMU 07.02.2025 Naresh/Secy … Naresh Kumar 2025.02.11 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document