S. No. 20 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) no.432/2023 Ghulam Nabi Sheikh …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Danish Majeed Dar, Advocate Vs. Nisara Begum ...Respondent(s) Through: Tawheed Ahmad Dar, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 02.07.2025 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against an order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Baramulla (“Revisional Court” for short) passed on 26.05.2023 whereby while disposing of the revision petition filed by the respondent, the amount of maintenance granted by the Trial Court @ Rs. 2500/- has been enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per month. The ground taken by the petitioner in this petition is that revision was not maintainable because it was filed beyond the period of limitation by the respondent. Therefore, his submission is that the said revision petition was liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, he submits that order impugned requires to be set-aside because the same has not been filed within timebound period and without there being any application seeking condonation of delay. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through order impugned as well and considered the matter. 3. What is challenged is an order which has been passed with the consent of the parties. The petitioner herein had not raised any objection before the Revisional Court whether such petition was barred by limitation or not. It may be mentioned here that the court of Sessions Judge is having the supervisory powers over subordinate courts with regard to the orders passed by the subordinate courts. Even otherwise the revision has not been decided on merits but stands disposed of on the statement and with the consent of the parties and the amount of maintenance has been enhanced on the agreement of the parties. Only question to be considered is as to whether amount enhanced on the basis of the agreement/consent of the parties can be disturbed/ modified. The relevant portion of the order under challenge, i.e., Para 4 to 5, is reproduced as under: “4. Mr. Abdul Lateef Mir, Advocate appearing for the respondent supporting impugned order refuted the contentions of the revisionist counsel. He added that the impugned order is correctly recorded in the attending facts and circumstances. Before close up, learned counsel on both the sides said that revision may be disposed of by modifying quantum of maintenance and after enhancement may be refixed @ Rs. 4,000/- per month. Learned counsels on both the sides also stated that the respondent shall make the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionist at enhanced rate of Rs. 4,000/- from the date of this order while proceeding such date, the monthly maintenance allowance shall be made by the respondent @ Rs. 2,500/-.” 5. After taking cumulative note of attending circumstances and the submissions made by learned counsels on both sides, I am of the opinion that the impugned order warrants modification so far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned. Accordingly, the respondent shall make the monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4,000 (Rupees four thousand only) in favour of the Revisionist. However, this modification shall take effect from the date of this order and the Respondent is under obligation to liquidate the arrears of maintenance if any, till date as per the impugned Order dated 26.11.2018….” 4. It would be clear from the order impugned that the amount of maintenance has been fixed on the statement of the counsel for parties @ Rs. 4,000/- per month, that too from the date of order 26.05.2023. The said enhancement has not been given effect from the date when the Trial Court order was passed inasmuch as the amount of maintenance till 25.05.2023 was to be paid @ Rs. 2500/-. 5. Since the amount of maintenance has been fixed on the consensus of the parties which cannot be interfered with in this petition, therefore this petition shall standdismissed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 02.07.2025 Misba