Haroon Rashid vs Mst.Shaheena & Anr.

Already revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order of maintenance passed by the court of City Magistrate, Srinagar. The said

order has not been modified by the revisional court (Session Judge, Srinagar). In fact one of the claimants i.e. Mst, Shaheena wife of the

nonapplicant has relinquished her claim before the court of Sessions Judge, Srinagar. Thus by such relinquishment, there has been no modification

made by the learned Sessions Judge, Srinagar while disposing of the revision petition.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that some modification has been done by learned Sessions Judge in the order of the trial

court is not well founded. So there is statutory bar in challenging the order of trial court which has already been challenged before a competent

court of concurrent jurisdiction with this court i.e. Sessions court.

For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. The order of the trial court regarding payment of

maintenance to the child from the date of application is upheld, as no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the trial Magistrate, in passing

the order of maintenance. However, order regarding maintenance of wife, the wife has herself relinquished her claim after the divorce, so there is

no need to modify the order, or rectify it.

The contention raised by Mr Tantray that there has been an agreement between the parties and is laying much emphasis on the said agreement,

is not well founded as because the minor child cannot be bound by any agreement whatsoever under the statute. Be it by mother or anybody else.

The agreement, on which reliance is being placed by Mr. Tantray is to the detriment of the minor's right and as such, has no legal force and is not

enforceable at law and is not to be given any weightage, except that of a trash and against public policy. The revision petition is accordingly

dismissed. Records be sent back to the trial court.