S. No.105 Suppl. 1 ,,,HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.388/2025 MASOODA BANOO …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Arshad Andrabi, Advocate. V/s SIRAJUDDIN SHAH … ..Respondent(s) Through : None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER Dt:11.07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 14.06.2025 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, whereby revision petition against order dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama has been dismissed. 2. Heard and considered. 3. It appears that a petition under Section 144 BNSS came to be filed by one Ms Ayat Jan (hereafter ‘the girl’) through her grandfather (the respondent herein) before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama. The petition was filed against the petitioner herein, who happens to be the mother of the girl. It was pleaded in the said petition that father of the girl was a Government employee who got killed by unidentified gunmen in CRM(M) No.388/2025 2 | P a g e the year 2002 when she was only a few years old. It was further pleaded that after the death of the father, the petitioner herein, who happens to be mother of the girl got a job of the Government employee on compassionate basis. It was alleged that the petitioner left the house of her in-laws and started living at her parental home, as a result of which, the girl was brought up by her grandfather, the respondent herein. The girl accordingly claimed maintenance from her mother, the petitioner herein. 4. It seems that the petitioner herein, after submitting the objections to the petition filed by the girl, chose not to participate in the proceedings and learned trial Magistrate passed order dated 07.11.2024, whereby the petitioner herein was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month to the girl. 5. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of a revision petition before learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, who vide impugned order dated 14.06.2025 proceeded to dismiss the revision petition. 6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the same has been passed on the basis of suppression and misrepresentation of facts. It has been contended that earlier applications of the girl were already rejected by the Courts below and this fact has been suppressed. It has been further contended that the petitioner was thrown out of her matrimonial house by her CRM(M) No.388/2025 3 | P a g e father-in-law and that she has been appointed as a guardian of the girl by the Court, as such, she is entitled to custody of the girl. It has been also contended that the respondent has no authority to file the petition on behalf of the girl. 7. So far as the relationship between the petitioner and the girl is concerned, the same is not in dispute. It is nowhere pleaded in the petition that the girl is presently living with the petitioner. It is interesting to note that the petitioner while filing revision petition against order dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama has impleaded her father-in-law, namely Sirajuddin Shah as respondent and not the girl in whose favour the order of interim maintenance has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of petition filed by the girl through her grandfather namely Sirajuddin. Even in the present petition the girl has not been made party and instead her grandfather who happens to be father-in-law of the petitioner has been made party. 8. It is correct that the petitioner is armed with the judgment dated 29.12.2007 passed by Principal District Judge, Pulwama whereby she has been appointed as guardian to the person of the girl and Shri Sirajuddin, the respondent herein has been directed to handover custody of the girl to the petitioner, but as has been noted by the learned revisional Court, the petitioner has never CRM(M) No.388/2025 4 | P a g e filed execution petition seeking execution of order passed by learned District Judge, Pulwama. As a consequence of this, the minor daughter of the petitioner continues to be with her grandfather who has been impleaded as respondent herein. In the face of this situation, the petitioner, who happens to be the mother of the girl, having secured her appointment on compassionate basis by giving an undertaking that she will look after the minor girl, is legally and morally obliged to pay maintenance to the girl. 9. So far as contention of the petitioner that this Court in WP(C) No. 1845/2024 had directed the employer of the petitioner not to deduct any amount of salary of the petitioner is concerned, the said direction pertains to sharing of salary with father-in-law and not with respect to sharing of salary with the minor daughter. The said order would, therefore, not come in the way of extending a direction to the petitioner to pay maintenance to her minor daughter. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by learned reivisonal Court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 11.07.2025 Sarveeda Nissar Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 15.07.2025 14:34