Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CRM(M)/623/2026 of MOHAMMAD MUDASIR MIR Vs ZAREEGA BEGUM AND OTHERS on 17 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 623/2026 CrlM(1443/2026) MOHAMMAD MUDASIR MIR ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate. V/s ZAREEGA BEGUM AND OTHERS ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar,
05
Regular
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 623/2026
CrlM(1443/2026)
MOHAMMAD MUDASIR MIR
….. Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate.
V/s
ZAREEGA BEGUM AND OTHERS
….. Respondent(s)
Through:
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
17.08.2026
1. The petitioner, is aggrieved of issuance of non-bailable warrants against him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara in terms of order dated 22.07.2026.
2. Heard and considered.
3. It appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara while hearing the execution petition of respondent No. 1 seeking execution of order of maintenance, has observed that confusion has arisen in the mind of the said Court as to whether maintenance order sought to be executed, is in respect of execution proceedings which were pending before the said Court and which ultimately culminated in passing of award of the Lok Adalat or whether the execution proceedings are to be taken in respect of execution P a g e | 2 CRM(M) 623/2026 CrlM(1443/2026)
petition filed earlier by respondent No. 1. Without deciding the said issue, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to issue non- bailable warrants against the petitioner only because he had failed to appear before the said court on the date fixed.
4. It was incumbent upon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to first decide the issue as to which of the execution petitions is to be proceeded prior to taking of any coercive measures against the petitioner. The impugned order of issuing warrants of arrest against the petitioner is, therefore, not sustainable in law. The same is accordingly set aside. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to first decide the issue which he has framed vide Order dated 01.07.2026 and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
5. Disposed of as above.
6. A copy of this order be sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR 17.08.2026 Aasif