DWARIKA NATH Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashment of the execution proceedings initiated against him, pending in the Court of Spl. Mobile Magistrate (Passenger Tax Shops and Establishment Act) Jammu. Petitioner also seeks quashment of order dtd. 25/7/2013 as well as order dtd. 20/3/2015.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case are that the respondent no.1, who is divorced wife of the petitioner, and respondent nos.2 and 3, who are children from the matrimonial relation of petitioner with respondent no. 1, had filed a petition under Sec. 488 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Passenger Tax, Shops and Establishment Act) Jammu and the Court held a Trial of the said petition titled Santosh Kumari and Ors. vs. Dwarika Nath and finally on 25/7/2013 decided the petition without hearing the arguments of counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that the learned Trial Court awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,500.00 per petitioner therein (respondents herein) totalling to Rs.7,500.00 per month from date of filing of the application i.e., 23/3/2005. The petitioner herein challenged the said order passed by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court before the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu. The learned Revisional Court finally disposed of the Revision Petition on 20/3/2015, whereby the revision petition was partly allowed and partly dismissed. The order of the learned Magistrate to the extent of granting maintenance to the respondent no.1 was held to be illegal and was set-aside while as the order of granting maintenance to respondent nos. 2 and 3 was upheld.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that order dtd. 20/3/2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu to the extent of granting maintenance to respondent No.2 is also illegal and bad. Petitioner has also challenged the quantum of maintenance granted by courts below and also order by virtue of which court has asked the petitioner to pay maintenance from date of filing of application.