High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 05 J&K CK 0020

JAGMOHAN SINGH vs SEEMA THAKUR & ANR

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 15 May 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
JANAK RAJ KOTWAL
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRMC NO. 271 OF 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 251 words

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

In an application under section 488 Cr.P.C, learned Magistrate by his order dated 08.11.2017 has directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance

allowance of Rs.5000/ to his minor son, who is reading in pre-nursery class in DPS, Udhampur. Petitioner challenged this order in revision before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur. Learned Revisional Court by its order dated 07.04.2018 dismissed the revision petition holding that the

order passed by the Magistrate was a reasoned order and suffers from no illegality.Â

Petitioner by the medium of this petition invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. and seeks quashing of both the orders

passed by the court below.Â

It is not disputed that the petitioner is a government servant serving as a Junior Engineer in the State Government. It is evident that the relations

between the petitioner and his wife are strained and the latter is living away from the petitioner and child is being brought up by her. It is also evident

that the mother of the child is also a government servant.

Considering all aspects of the matter, no illegality or error can be attributed to an order directing a father to pay Rs.5000/ per month for maintenance

of his minor child. I am, thus, not persuaded to take a view that there is a case for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A

Cr.P.C.

Viewed thus, this petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.