HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU 561-A No. 6/2007 Cr. M. P no. 8/2007 Date of decision: 03.11.2008 ___________________________________________________________ Sikander Hussain Vs. Shaheen Kouser Coram: MR. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH, JUDGE. Appearing Counsel: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rameshwar P. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. I. Sher Khan, Advocate. i) Whether approved for reporting in Press/Journal/Media : Yes ii) Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal : Yes ________________________________________________________ __________ Sikander Hussain has filed this petition under section 561- A Cr.P. C. seeking quashing of District Judicial Mobile Magistrate Ist Class Rajouri’s order of August 30, 2005 directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 600/- to the respondent and order of December 19, 2006 of learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri refusing to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate. Mr. R. P. Sharma, petitioner’s counsel questions the Magistrate’s order on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to 2 award maintenance to the respondent in view of the refusal of the Army Authorities to sanction maintenance in her favour on the ground that petitioner had divorced her as per Muslim law. Mr. Sher Khan, appearing for the respondent justifies the Magistrate’s order saying that refusal of the Army Authorities to pay maintenance to the respondent would not bar the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to sanction maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the provisions of Section 91 of the Army Act, 1950 which deal with penal deductions that may be made from the pay and allowances of persons other than officers subject to the Army Act. Jurisdiction of the Army Authorities to make penal deductions from the pay and allowances of the Army personnel is not adjudicatory in nature and as such would not affect the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to pass orders under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on his finding that the husband having sufficient means had neglected or refused to maintain his wife. Once such a finding is recorded by the Magistrate that the husband having sufficient means had neglected or refused to maintain his wife, refusal of the Army authorities to make penal deductions from the pay and allowances of the husband on the 3 ground that the husband had divorced the wife, would not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in directing payment of monthly maintenance allowance by the husband to the wife. Both the courts below have concurrently found the petitioner to have failed to prove that he had divorced the respondent. In view of the factual finding recorded by the two courts that petitioner had failed to prove the two photo copies of the alleged Divorce deeds relied upon by the petitioner to support his plea of having divorced the respondent, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of learned District Mobile Magistrate Ist Class, Rajouri. This petition, therefore, lacks substance. It is accordingly, dismissed. ( J. P. Singh ) Judge JAMMU: 03.11.2008. Tilak, Secy. 4