Point of Law: Maintenance case - Ex-parte judgment - Challenged - Income of petitioner, amount of maintenance allowed by trial court is certainly very extreme and harsh - Impugned order modified by reducing amount of maintenance.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this judgment I propose to dispose of two petitions together as both pertain to one and the same controversy.

CRM (M) no. 72/2020

2. By the instant petition, the petitioner challenges the ex-parte judgment and order dated 29th February, 2020, for short impugned order, passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (3rd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar, for short trial court, on the petition titled Nighat Bano and another v. Ehsan Ali Dar, filed by the respondent under and in terms of Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the trial court while allowing the petition has granted Rs. 60,000/- as monthly maintenance charges in favour of the respondents holding them entitled to receive the maintenance @ Rs. 30,000/- each, from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 03.07.2019.

3. The challenge to the impugned order is made inter alia on the grounds that the trial court under the influence of the interim order of this Court passed in a petition bearing CRM (M) no. 268/2019, reducing the interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-, by misconstruing the same as confirmation of the interim maintenance, has passed the impugned order; the interim order of this court by virtue of which the interim maintenance was reduced to Rs. 30,000/- was purely an interim arrangement made at its threshold and the petition on the subject is not finally decided, therefore, the impugned order has dissected the cause of maintenance into interim and final where final determination is given precedence over the interim relief; the trial court, by passing the impugned order, has disregarded and steriled the supervisory powers of this Court; the impugned order impinges upon the rights of the petitioner in the proceedings pending before this court as the issue vis-à-vis the quantum of interim maintenance is pending adjudication before this court; the impugned order has been passed in disregard to the earning capacity of the petitioner and the monthly maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- is based on no creditable evidence; the impugned order has caused miscarriage of justice, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain.

4. To understand the controversy in proper perspective, a brief look at the events, leading to the filing of the instant petition is taken note of in the first instance, thus:

5. The petitioner is stated to be working as a General Site Technician at Odeh Asalem Automation Systems L.I.C, ODASCA, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, who has married respondent no. 1 on 28th August, 2014, and out of their wedlock respondent no. 2 is begotten. The relations got strained and the respondent no. 1, allegedly feeling neglected, filed a petition seeking maintenance in terms of Section 488 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court, on consideration of the matter, awarded ex-parte interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of respondents in terms of order dated 30.07.2019 which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in a petition bearing CRM (M) no. 268/2019 and this Court, while issuing notice to the other side, reduced the interim maintenance to Rs. 30,000/- in terms of order dated 20.11.2019. Subsequent thereto the trial court, in terms of impugned order, allowed the petition under section 488 of the Cr.P.C., and granted maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- in favour of respondents. The petition CRM (M) no. 268/2019, came to be disposed of on the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking liberty to challenge the final order in the appropriate proceedings, in terms of order dated 6th March, 2020.

CRMC no. 13/2019

CrlM no. 178/2019

6. By this petition, the petitioners, who are parents and siblings of Ehsan Ali Dar, petitioner in the CRM (M) 72/2020, are challenging and seeking quashment of the complaint filed in terms of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010, for short Act, by the respondent no.1 and the proceedings initiated thereupon by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Regi