1. Through this revision petition order dated 22nd of July, 2008 passed by learned Principal District Judge in Criminal Revision Petition titled Mohammad Muzaffar Ahmad Sheikh Versus Mst. Rifat Ara and another is called in question.

2. The brief facts of case are that respondents filed a maintenance application before the learned City Magistrate, Srinagar and learned City Magistrate, Srinagar passed maintenance order against the petitioner, notwithstanding this fact that the petitioner has taken specific plea that he has divorced the respondent no.1, so is not liable to pay any maintenance to her. The matter was brought before this Court in Criminal Revision Petition no. 33/2006 which revision petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14th of February, 2007. This Court recorded its findings that order impugned being well reasoned needs no interference. It appears that the petitioner thereafter instituted Civil Original Suit seeking declaration that he is not liable to pay maintenance to respondent no.1 for the reason of she having been divorced. After institution of the said civil suit, petitioner filed an application before the learned City Magistrate, Srinagar and requested him to keep in abeyance the order dated 26th of August, 2006 till final disposal of the civil suit. Learned City Magistrate, Srinagar dismissed the application vide order dated 15th of May, 2008 against which order Criminal Revision Petition was filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar who vide impugned order dismissed the same.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Considered the matter.

4. The order passed by learned City Magistrate, Srinagar directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents having been confirmed by this Court, the application filed by the petitioner praying therein for keeping in abeyance the same order because of pendency of the civil suit, on the face of it was misconceived. The pendency of the civil suit would not entitle the petitioner to seek such a relief from the learned City Magistrate, Srinagar.

5. The maintenance order under section 488 Cr.P.C was passed after considering the entire conspectus of the case and the issues raised, which order was subsequently confirmed by this Court. Mere filing of civil suit in law would not cloth the petitioner with any right to seek keeping in abeyance the order of criminal court. In the attendant facts and circumstances of this case the criminal court would not keep in abeyance the maintenance order which order is confirmed by this Court.

6. Learned Principal Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the revision petition. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality which renders this revision petition meritless and is accordingly dismissed alongwith all connected Cr.M.Ps. However, if any order is passed by the Civil Court and same is brought to the notice of the criminal court, the criminal court is duty bound to consider its impact on the proceedings pending on its files in accordance with law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document