05 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CrlM No. 147/2025 In CRM (M) No. 75/2025 CrlM No. 148/2025 Ghulam Rasool Qazi ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Nadeem Gull, Adv. V/s Saniya Jan and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge. ORDER 24.02.2025 CrlM No. 147/2025: For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the requirement of filing certified copy of order dated 30.01.2025 is dispensed with. CrlM disposed of. CRM (M) No. 75/2025: The petitioner has challenged order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Srinagar whereby execution petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner in proceedings under Section 125 of Cr. PC has been revived. Heard and considered. P a g e | 2 CrlM No. 147/2025 In CRM (M) No. 75/2025 CrlM No. 148/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the a compromise was arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the execution petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner for execution of order of maintenance passed on 03.08.2019 and order dated 06.12.2023 came to be passed by the learned Family Court and the execution petition was disposed of in terms of the said compromise. It has been contended that the respondents without challenging the said compromise have sought revival of the execution petition with respect to order dated 03.08.2019 which his impermissible in law. If we have a look at the compromise arrived at between the parties on 5th December 2023 which became the basis for disposal of the earlier execution petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner, Clause (7) thereof clearly provides that in case the petitioner herein repeats his behaviour towards respondent No. 1 herein, she shall be at liberty to knock the doors of Court for redressal of her grievances. The compromise arrived at between the parties was, therefore, conditional in nature and once any of the conditions of the said compromise was violated by the petitioner herein, it was open to respondent No. 1 to seek revival of the execution proceedings. This is what she has done by filing application before the learned Family Court. P a g e | 3 CrlM No. 147/2025 In CRM (M) No. 75/2025 CrlM No. 148/2025 The Family Court has approached the case in a proper manner by reviving the execution proceedings in view of contention raised by the defendant No. 1 that the petitioner has flouted the terms of compromise. While reviving the execution petition filed by the respondents, the learned Family court has recorded that the respondents shall not be entitled to maintenance for the period for which they had stayed with the petitioner in terms of the compromise arrived at between them during the execution proceedings, thereby taking care of the interests of the petitioner as well. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Family court. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 24.02.2025 Aasif