1 CRMC No. 416/2018 IA No. 1/2018 S. No. 100 Suppl. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRMC No. 416/2018 IA No. 1/2018 Noor-ul-Anwar Paul …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Hakeem Suhail Ishtiaq, Advocate Vs. Arbeen Anwar Paul through her mother Khalida Akhtar ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Saqib Amin Parray, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE O R D E R 24.04.2025 1. The petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A, of the erstwhile J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (“Cr.PC”, for short) for quashment of an order dated 21.05.2018, propounded by learned Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Srinagar, under 13th Finance Commission, [“the trial court”] and order dated 24.01.2018 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, [„the revisional court”] in case titled “Arbeena Paul v. Noor-ul-Anwar Paul.” 2. As factual narration of the present case would unfurl, the respondent along with her brother Faisal Anwar Paul, through their mother Mst. Khalida, preferred a petition for maintenance under Section 488 Cr.PC in the trial court and vide order dated 04.04.2015, the said petition came to be allowed, whereby petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1200/- per month as maintenance to the respondent and the mother of respondent was also directed to contribute Rs.2300/- per month. This order came to 2 CRMC No. 416/2018 IA No. 1/2018 be questioned by the respondent in the revisional court, and the said court vide order dated 24.01.2018 was of the opinion that sharing of maintenance by parents to their children is not aim and object of law and it is liability of the father to maintain his children. As a result, revision petition came to be allowed and case was remanded to the trial court for re-consideration. The trial court vide order dated 21.05.2018, considered the matter afresh and having regard to the legal position allowed the maintenance petition and petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3500/- from the date of filing of the petition. It is this order of the trial court, which has been questioned by the petitioner in the present petition, inter alia, on the ground that learned trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction and that in view of law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in „Padmja Sharma v. Rattan Lal’; AIR 2000 SC 1398, a working lady is also responsible to maintain her children. According to the petitioner, he is an adhoc employee in Health and Family Welfare Department drawing a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- whereas mother of the respondent is working as a Junior Assistant in the Agricultural Department and draws a handsome salary. 3. Having heard rival contentions of the parties, I have carefully gone through the record as also the impugned orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court. 4. The petitioner seeks quashment of impugned orders, primarily, on the ground that since mother of the respondent is a working woman and is permanent employee as a Junior Assistant in the Agriculture Department, she is legally liable to contribute towards the maintenance of her children. However, a perusal of the record transpires that 3 CRMC No. 416/2018 IA No. 1/2018 although the said plea was raised by the petitioner before the trial court, however, he did not adduce any evidence in this respect to substantiate. 5. Be that as it may, an amount of Rs.3500/- per month awarded by the trial court is neither excessive nor exorbitant in these days of dearness. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is not sufficient to meet the expenditure, therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced. 7. Having regard to what has been observed and discussed above, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. As a consequence, the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the trial court is upheld. However, respondent shall be at liberty to make an application to the trial court for the enhancement of maintenance amount already awarded, if she so desires and learned trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law. 8. Disposed of along with connected CM(s). (RAJESH SEKHRI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 24.04.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 25.04.2025 16:30