Decided on April 25,2006

Nisar Ahmad Nengroo Appellant
Khalida Respondents


- (1.) THIS petition impugns an order dated 14.03.2005 purporting to have been passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian in proceedings under Section 488 Cr. P. C. captioned as Mst Khalida and others v. Nisar Ahmad Nengroo wherein the learned Magistrate while allowing respondents maintenance petition has directed payment of Rs. 1000/ - to first petitioner and Rs.500/ - each to petitioners 2 to 7 on account of monthly maintenance with effect from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 14.02.2004. Grounds pleaded are that the impugned order of maintenance is bad in fact and law for the reason of having been passed without appreciating the evidence led before the learned Magistrate.
(2.) IN their objections respondents have inter alia pleaded that petitioner has projected a tailored case in the revision petition against the impugned order which in facts and circumstances of the case is well founded particularly because petitioner has deserted respondents to shift from his ancestral place of living to Srinagar and contracted a second marriage totally giving up his liability to bring up the respondents. During course of their submissions the counsel for rival sides have re -iterated contents of their written pleadings.
(3.) VIDE interim order dated 23.12.2005 petitioner was directed to deposit 2/3rd of the amount due for payment in terms of the impugned order on account whereof as per note of Registry petitioner appears to have paid in cash and kind an amount of around Rs. 65,000/ - while as his total liability as calculated is Rs. 96,000/ - and thus apparently the interim direction appears to have been carried out. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Curiously enough the petitioner has chosen to institute this petition in this Court instead of concerned Sessions court which ordinarily would be the (sic) proper revisional court in the first instance without, however, giving any cogent reason for that. This circumstance necessitates the reference to an observation of this Court in its order dated 07.03.2006 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 118/2005 whereunder while considering this aspect the following observation was made: - Before concluding, however, it would be appropriate to observe that the present revision petition which arises out of an order of Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag could and perhaps should well have been instituted in the Sessions Court at Anantnag where respondents would find it easy to prosecute their case rather than in this Court which must have put them to greater inconvenience and expenditure. That the revision petition has been instituted in this Court instead of concerned Sessions Court perhaps appears to have been occasioned by the fact that petitioner resides at Srinagar and instead of going to prosecute the revision petition at Anantnag he choose to drag the respondents all the way from Pahalgam to Srinagar, which even though permissible in view of the concurrency of revisional jurisdiction of this Court and the court of Sessions can perhaps not be approved in attending realities of the case. Given that it would perhaps be advisable that as a matter of practice institution of revision petitions against Magisterial orders be restricted to courts of Sessions, which besides being convenient for the parties would also be in the interests of proceedings because being nearer to ground realities the court of Sessions can ascertain facts and circumstances of a particular case more clearly, and if necessary from parties directly and in suitable cases try negotiated settlements also." ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.