SHEIKH MOHAMMAD SHAFI Vs. MEHMOODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts that stem out from the instant petition under section 561-A Cr. P.C. filed for quashing the order dated 10.12.2016 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam, passed in an application under section 488 Cr. P.C. titled Mehmooda versus Sheikh Mohammad Shafi, are that after the expiry of the wife of the petitioner, the petitioner married the respondent. The petitioner had two issues from his first wife one male and one female. It is pleaded that after this marriage the attitude and the behavior of the respondent towards the family of the petitioner including his mother was not cordial. The respondent tried to pressurize the petitioner to transfer his immoveable property in her favour. The petitioner refused to do so, as a consequence of which the respondent went to her parental house and did not return even on the death of the mother of the petitioner in April 2016. The respondent filed the above titled petition u/s 488 Cr. P.C. for maintenance before the learned trial court. The learned trial court referred the matter to mediation. The parties appeared before the mediator. The parties did not reach at any conclusion and resultantly the mediation failed. A report to that effect was also submitted by the mediator before the learned trial court. It is submitted that when the mediation failed between the parties, the petitioner divorced the respondent and executed a deed of divorce on 4th of May 2016. The petitioner sent the divorce deed to the respondent through post along with a cheque bearing no. 738448 dated 05.05.2016 amounting to Rs. 10,000 as maintenance for the period of iddat in an envelope which was returned by the counsel for the petitioner. The respondent had refused to accept it. The petitioner filed an application before the learned trial court for taking on record the divorce deed along with the cheque in the form of maintenance for the period of iddat. The said application was taken on record by the learned trial court. The learned trial court without considering the facts of the case granted interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000 per month in favour of the respondent in terms of impugned order dated 10.12.2016, which is against the law and facts detailed in the petition

(2.) Heard and considered. The trial court record has also been perused by me.

(3.) To canvas his argument that the trial court erred in passing the order of maintenance, the learned counsel for the petitioner has put explicit reliance on the law laid down by this court in the case of Masarat Begum versus Ab. Rashid Khan and another, 2014 3 JKJ 1 (HC), the relevant excerpts of which are detailed below: