Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/256/2026 of SAJAD AHMAD KHAN Vs NASEEMA BEGUM AND OTHERS on 6 July 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 256/2026 CM(3923/2026). Sajad Ahmad Khan. …Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Saleem Gul, Advocate. VERSUS Naseema Begum And Others. …Respondent(s) Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE. ORDER
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) 256/2026 CM(3923/2026).
Sajad Ahmad Khan.
…Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. Saleem Gul, Advocate.
VERSUS
Naseema Begum And Others.
…Respondent(s)
Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, 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
06.07.2026
1. This Court has no whit of leniency to be spared for the petitioner who has got five children born out of the respondent No. 1 and has then left the respondent No. 1 along with the five children, all being minors, one of whom is even physically challenged, at the mercy of fate to fend for themselves without discharging his own marital and parental responsibility of maintaining them.
2. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, (CJM) Bandipora has admitted the respondents to the reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with a direction unto the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- each (Rs. 24,000/- total per month) for six persons, i.e., respondents No. 1 to 6 for keeping their body and soul together and also restraining the petitioner from forcibly taking away the children from the respondent No. 1.
3. The petitioner was served in the case for appearance to state his position, but he defaulted, and that resulted in disposal of the main 06 Regular proceedings in terms of an order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, (CJM) Bandipora, against which the petitioner ventured to an appeal on File No. 550/2025 before the Principal District Judge, Bandipora, which appeal the petitioners allowed to suffer dismissal on account of his non-appearance.
4. Against that backdrop, the petitioner is now coming forward with proceedings under article 227 of the Constitution of India with an objective to take exception to the manner in which the execution of the main order is taking place.
5. The petitioner cannot be heard even for an iota of moment by this Court except to announce to him that his case is being dismissed in limine. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed in limine.
6. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, (CJM) Bandipora for the sake of notice and for pursuing the execution proceedings to its logical end and effect against the petitioner.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 06.07.2026 Bisma Jan.