Crl(R) No.37 of 2026 Page 1 of 6 S. No.3 Regular List ,IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Crl(R) No.37/2026 CrlM No. 953/2026 CrlM No. 954/2026 ROUF RAFIQ …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.S.H.Thakur, Advocate V/s ROUFA JAVED AND OTHERS … ..Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 01.07.2026 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order dated 10th June 2026 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Srinagar, in a petition under Section 144 BNSS filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against him. Vide the impugned order, the learned Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- as monthly interim maintenance to respondent No.2, while as grant of interim maintenance to respondent No.1 has been deferred. 2. It appears that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed an application under Section 144 BNSS against the petitioner herein seeking maintenance. While respondent No.1 happens to be the Crl(R) No.37 of 2026 Page 2 of 6 legally wedded wife of the petitioner, respondent No.2 happens to be the girl child who was born out of said wedlock. In the petition filed before the learned Family Court, the respondents have alleged that the petitioner has deserted them and he has neglected to maintain them. They have further submitted that they are not able to maintain themselves, while as the petitioner is a man of means earning about Rs. 40,000 per month. Therefore, he is obliged to pay maintenance to the respondents herein. According to the respondents, they were thrown out from the house by the petitioner and they have been forced to live under open sky. It is the case of the respondents that they have no source of income to maintain themselves. 3. The petitioner contested the petition by filing reply to the same. In the reply, the petitioner alleged that respondent No.1 is living in adultery and she has the extramarital affair which has become cause of marital discord between the parties. He further submitted that the respondents have suppressed material information from the Court, inasmuch as, respondent No.2 is receiving monetary compensation of Rs.4,000/- per month in proceedings launched by the respondents against him under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). It has been contended that the petitioner is a daily rated worker earning Rs.300/- per day and he has to support his old-aged mother and has also to take care of his medical expenses. Crl(R) No.37 of 2026 Page 3 of 6 4. Initially, the learned Family Court vide order dated 11.12.2025 awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000 per month in favor of each of the respondents. However, while passing the said order, the objections filed by the petitioner were not taken into consideration. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner by way of a petition bearing FAO (MAT) No.1 of 2026 before this Court. By order dated 15th April 2026 passed by this Court, the order of Family Court passed on 11.12.2025 was kept in abeyance and the matter was remanded to the learned Family Court with a direction to pass fresh order after taking into consideration the objections filed by the petitioner herein. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the learned Family Court has passed impugned order dated 10.06.2026, whereby interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/-per month has been awarded in favor of respondent No.2, whereas grant of interim maintenance to respondent No. 1 has been deferred on the ground that a compromise has been arrived between the petitioner and respondent No.1, wherein respondent No.1 has admitted that she is having an extramarital affair. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved of impugned order passed by the Family Court to the extent of grant of interim maintenance in favor of respondent No. 2, primarily on the ground that learned Family Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a Crl(R) No.37 of 2026 Page 4 of 6 daily rated worker earning only Rs.9,000/- per month, as such, it would be very harsh upon him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- plus Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.1. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. 8. Before proceeding to decide the merits of the present petition, it would be necessary to understand the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It is a settled law that the object of exercising revisional jurisdiction is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or jurisdictional discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. In short, revisional jurisdiction of a High Court is very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. 9. Turning to the facts of the present case, the relationship of the petitioner with respondent No. 2 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 is a minor child and, as such, incapable of earning any income. Not even the respondent No.1, the mother of the child, is an earning hand. In these circumstances, the whole moral and legal responsibility of taking care of needs of respondent No.2 rests upon the petitioner. It has also to be taken into account Crl(R) No.37 of 2026 Page 5 of 6 that the learned Family Court has not awarded any interim maintenance in favor of respondent No. 1, the mother of respondent No.2, with whom respondent No.2 is residing, and there is no dispute to the fact that the respondents are residing separately. Therefore, the petitioner has not only to take care of the food, clothing and educational expenses of respondent No.2, but he is also obliged to take care of the expenses for arrangement of a proper shelter to her. 10. Respondent No. 2 is being paid Rs.4,000/- per month as interim monetary compensation by the order of the Magistrate passed in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has been asked to pay a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month in her favor, making it Rs.6,000/- in all. An amount of Rs.6,000/- per month in the present times for providing food, clothing, education and shelter of a child can by no stretch of imagination be termed as excessive and unreasonable, so as to warrant interference in such an order under revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner may be earning only Rs.9,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month, but being an able-bodied person, it is his moral and legal duty to take care of at least the bare minimum needs of his child. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court in favor of respondent No. 2 after duly taking into account the Crl(R) No.37 of 2026 Page 6 of 6 amount of maintenance which respondent No.2 is receiving in DV Act proceedings can by no stretch of reasoning be termed as unreasonable or harsh. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 01.07.2026 Sarveeda Nissar 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 01.07.2026 21:37