Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar BenchAltaf Ahmad Malik vs Parveena Begum on 1 September, 2023Author:Puneet GuptaBench:Puneet GuptaSr. No. 121\n                                                               Suppl List\n\n       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH\n                      AT SRINAGAR\n                           ...\n                                   CRMC No. 12/2019\n                                  [CRM(M) No. 12/2019]\n                                               Pronounced on: 01.09.2023\n     Altaf Ahmad Malik, Aged 34 yrs.\n     S/o Bashir Ahmad Malik,\n     R/o Garkote Tehsil Uri District\n     Baramulla, Kashmir.                                .........Petitioner(s)..\n\n                                Through:\n                         Mr. M.M.Khan, Advocate.\n     Versus\n1.   Parveena Begum, Aged 30 yrs.\n     W/o Altaf Ahmad Malik,\n     D/o Gh. Nabi Lone,\n     R/o Garkote, Uri.\n2.    Fatima, Aged 4 yrs. (minor),\n      D/o Altaf Ahmad Malik,\n      R/o Garkote Tehsil Uri, District Baramulla\n     (Minor through her mother).                        ......Respondent(s)..\n\n                                Through:\n                       Mr. Omais Kawoosa, Advocate.\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE.\n                               JUDGMENT1.        The judgment passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate (Sub-Judge, Uri) has been impugned in the present petition whereby the\n          court had directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.7000/- per month\n          to the respondent No.1 herein and Rs.5000/- to the respondent No.2\n          from the date of filing of the application on the grounds mentioned\n          in the petition.2.        Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that\n          the petition cannot be entertained underSection 561-ACr.P.C as\n          the petitioner has an alternative remedy to pursue against the order\n          impugned. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not\n          controvert the submission of learned counsel for the respondents\n          that the petitioner could avail alternate remedy in the matter. The2                    CRMC No. 12/2019counsel, however, submits that as the petition is pending for some\n         time, the court may hear the petition.3.       The Court is of the view that in view of the alternative remedy\n         available with the petitioner, he should not have resorted to the\n         present proceedings before this Court. The court is not required to\n         meticulously scan the evidence that has come on record on the basis\n         of which the trial court has passed the impugned judgment in the\n         petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.4.       The scope of this Court in terms of Section 561-A Cr. P.C, as then\n         applicable, is restricted one and cannot be invoked in the case in\n         hand.5.       The petition is, accordingly, held to be not maintainable. The\n         petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy which he may have against\n         the order impugned. In the interest of justice, it is directed that in\n         case the petitioner resorts to the remedy available with him, the time\n         spent in the present petition shall stand excluded while computing\n         the period of limitation that may be prescribed for such remedy.6.       Disposed of.(PUNEET GUPTA)\n                                                                  JUDGE\nSrinagar:01.09.2023\nPawan Chopra\n                   Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No\n                   Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes/No