ZAREEFA BEGUM & ANR Vs. GHULAM MOHIDIN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant 561-A petition is directed against the order dated 3rd of May, 2014, passed by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara, in revision petition titled "Ghulam Mohi-u-Din v. Mst. Zareena Begum & Anr.", whereby the revisional Court, while allowing the revision against the orders dated 28th of December, 2012 and 11th of May, 2013, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Kupwara, has set aside the order of maintenance to the extent of payment of the maintenance in favour of the petitioner No.1 (Zareena Begum) and remanded the case to the learned trial Magistrate for decision afresh. It has been further directed by the revisional Court that, during the pendency of the decision on the maintenance petition before the learned trial Magistrate, the non-applicant/ respondent herein shall continue to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- in favour of the minor daughter through her mother.

(2.) This Court, in terms of order dated 13th of December, 2016, while registering the seriousness of the matter with reference to the approach adopted by the learned trial Magistrate, had directed the learned Registrar Judicial to call an explanation from the learned trial Magistrate with reference to the casual reference which he has adopted in dealing with the petition under Section 488 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the learned trial Magistrate, i.e. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Kupwara, submitted his explanation on 17th of December, 2016, which, on perusal, was found to be unsatisfactory by this Court in terms of order dated 6th of February, 2017. Taking a lenient view in the matter, the learned trial Magistrate was requested to decide the matter within two months from 6th of February, 2017 and, in the meanwhile, the respondent was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Subsequently, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 21st of November, 2017, the respondent paid the outstanding arrears as maintenance to his daughter in the Open Court.

(3.) Since the Court has allowed the learned trial Magistrate to proceed with the proceedings in terms of the directions passed by the revisional Court, therefore, there is no scope for keeping the present petition pending which can be disposed of by directing the learned trial Magistrate to conclude the proceedings and decide the matter, if not already decided, within a specific timeframe and report compliance to this Court.