S. No.130 Suppl.2 ,,,HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.206/2025 Rayees Ahmad Dar …..Petitioner(s) Through: Ms.Bilquees Jabeen, Advocate. V/s Mst Shareefa and Anr. … ..Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 27.05.2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has sought quashment of order dated 24.04.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Srinagar in execution petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner. 2. Heard and considered. 3. It appears that there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 which led to filing of petition under Section 488 J&K Cr.P.C by respondents before Principal Judge, Family Court Srinagar. On 08.09.2021 an order came to be passed by the said Court, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.2500/- to respondent No.2. It appears that during the execution proceedings in CM(M) No.206 of 2025 2 | P a g e respect of the aforesaid order, a settlement was arrived at between the parties before the lok adalat, whereby respondents accepted an amount of Rs.61000/- from the petitioner in full and final settlement of the execution proceedings and the execution petition came to be disposed of in terms of award dated 05.10.2024 passed by Lok Adalat. 4. It appears that respondent No.1 filed another execution petition before the learned Family Court in January 2025 seeking recovery of Rs.2,25,000/- from the petitioner. In the execution petition it was admitted by respondent No.1 that she had received an amount of Rs.50,000/- leaving balance outstanding amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- . It has been submitted that the petitioner has filed objections to the execution petition and it has been contended therein that he was in arrears of only Rs.33,000/- from November 2024 to April, 2025 out of which he has paid Rs.50,000/-, as such, it is the respondent who has to refund Rs.17000/- to the petitioner, but the learned executing court by virtue of impugned order has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and when he failed to do so, warrants of arrest were issued against him, pursuant whereto he landed in jail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been set at liberty after deposition of substantial CM(M) No.206 of 2025 3 | P a g e amount with the executing court, even though he was not liable to pay any amount to the respondents. 6. Having regard to the contention raised by the petitioner, the petition can be disposed of at this stage by extending appropriate directions to the learned executing court. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by directing the learned executing court to take into account the objections filed by the petitioner to the execution petition and hear the petitioner before taking any further coercive measures against him. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 27.05.2025 Sarveeda Nissar 1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 30.05.2025 14:43