07 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM (M) No. 10/2025 CrlM No. 14/2025 Aijaz Ahmad Sofi ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Saiful Islam, Adv. V/s Shabeena Akther and anr. ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge. ORDER 17.02.2025 1. Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged orders dated 24.07.2023 and 21.09.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge) Bijbehara. Vide order dated 24.07.2023, the learned Magistrate has, in proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.PC directed the petitioner to pay interim monthly maintenance in the amount of Rs. 14,000/- (Rs 8500 in respect of respondent No. 1 and Rs. 5500/- in respect of respondent No. 2). 2. Vide order dated 21.09.2023, passed by the learned Magistrate in a proceeding under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as DV Act), a further sum of Rs. P a g e | 2 CRM (M) No. 10/2025 CrlM No. 14/2025 3000/- per month has been directed to be paid as an interim monetary compensation in favour of respondent No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court has not taken into account the income of the petitioner nor has the learned trial court taken into consideration the fact that respondent No. 1 is working as Teacher in private school. 4. If we have a look at the documents annexed with the petition, it appears that the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anantnag against order dated 24.07.2023 and vide order dated 27.08.2024, the said revision petition has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by a detailed order. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Magistrate clearly indicates that the learned trial Magistrate has taken into account the income of the petitioner by noticing that the petitioner is a man of substance and is running a medical agency at Anantnag. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that respondent No. 1 is working as Teacher in private school. So far as order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate under DV Act is concerned, a perusal thereof reveals that the learned trial Magistrate has, while fixing the amount of monetary compensation, duly taken note of the amount of interim P a g e | 3 CRM (M) No. 10/2025 CrlM No. 14/2025 maintenance granted in favour of respondent No. 1 in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.PC. 5. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS is very limited and it is only in a case where miscarriage of justice has occurred due to orders passed by the subordinate criminal courts that this Court would step in to prevent such miscarriage of justice. In the present case, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Magistrate nor can it be stated that the interim maintenance granted in favour of the respondents is exorbitant. Thus it is not open to this Court to interfere with the impugned order, in these proceedings. 6. Apart from the above, in the instant case, the petitioner after having failed in his revision petition filed against the impugned order has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS. The petitioner under the garb of filing this petition is in effect filing a second revision petition. The same is barred under Section 438(3) of BNSS. On this ground also, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 17.02.2025 Aasif