MAJID ALI KHAN vs NEELOFAR AKHTER AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR

CRM(M) No.293/2026
Dr.MAJID ALI KHAN
...PETITIONER(S)

Through:-Ms.Sami Shah, Advocate .
Vs.
MST. NEELOFAR AKHTER & ANOTHER
…RESPONDENT(S)
Through:-None
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
1) The petitioner has challenged the application filed by the
respondents (hereinafter ‘the aggrieved person’) against him under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (hereinafter ‘the DV Act’. Challenge has also been thrown to the
proceedings emanating from the said application, which is pending
before the Court of learned Forest Magistrate, Srinagar.
2) As per the case of the petitioner, respondent No.1 who happens to
be his wife, has filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking
monetary compensation as well as order of protection before the Court
of learned Forest Magistrate, Srinagar. It has been alleged that
matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 has
come to an end by way of Khula on 13.08.2021. According to the

Page 2 of 5



petitioner right from the first day of Nikah he has tried to maintain good
relations with respondent No.1, but she voluntarily out of her own will
dissolved the marriage. It has been contended that the allegations
relating to domestic violence made in the impugned petition against the
petitioner are absolutely false and frivolous and that the petitioner has
always provided to respondent No.1 as also to the minor child every
comfort. It has been submitted that the petitioner made sincere efforts to
prevent the marriage from being dissolved but without any success.
According to the petitioner, the behaviour of respondent No.1 has not
remained up to the mark and she has allowed her parental family to
interfere in the matrimonial affairs, which resulted in breakdown of
matrimonial ties.
3) It has been submitted that vide interim order dated 11.11.2025
passed by the learned trial Magistrate, interim monetary compensation of
Rs.7000/- per month has been directed to be paid by the petitioner to the
respondents, which order according to the petitioner has not been passed
by the trial Court in accordance with law.
4) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner has filed objections to the petition and
he has also sought dropping of proceedings before the learned trial
Magistrate but vide order dated 02.05.2026, the learned trial Magistrate
has held that the prayer of the petitioner for dropping of proceedings is
not maintainable on the ground that a Magistrate’s Court is not vested
with power to pass such order.

Page 3 of 5



5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material on record.
6) The petitioner is aggrieved of impugned application filed by
respondents under Section 12 of the DV Act as also order dated
11.11.2025 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, whereby ex-parte
interim monetary compensation has been awarded in favour of
respondents.

7) So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are
concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal
complaint or initiation of prosecution. So, the trial Magistrate, after
obtaining the response from the husband and his relatives etc. is well
within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or
he can even drop the proceedings. The learned Magistrate would be well
within his jurisdiction to cancel the interim order of monetary
compensation if he, upon going through the response of the husband and
his relatives, finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in or that no
case for grant of interim monetary compensation is made out. Since the
proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not, in strict sense,
criminal in nature, as such, bar to alter/revoke an order by a Magistrate is
not attracted to these proceedings.
8) In my aforesaid view, I am supported by the judgment of the
2022
Supreme Court in the case of Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan,
SCC OnLine SC 446 . The Supreme Court in the said case has observed

Page 4 of 5



that scope of notice under Section 12 of the DV Act is to call for a
response from the respondent in terms of the Statute so that after
considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued.
9) In view of the above discussion and the law on the subject, it is
clear that a Magistrate has power to revoke the proceedings initiated
against a person in terms of Section 12 of the DV Act, if and when the
Magistrate finds that there is no ground to proceed against such person.

10) In the instant case, the petitioner has already filed reply to the
impugned application before the learned trial Magistrate. In view of the
legal position enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamatchi
v. Lakshmi Narayanan (Supra), there is no legal impediment for the
learned trial Magistrate to drop the proceedings against the petitioner, if
the facts and circumstances of the case warrant so. The Supreme Court
has clearly held in the aforesaid case that proceedings under Section 12
of the DV Act are not in strict sense criminal in nature, as such bar to
alter or revoke an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these
proceedings. Thus, refusal of the learned Magistrate to consider the
prayer of petitioner for dropping of proceedings on merits amounts to
failure on his part to exercise the jurisdiction vested with him. It will be
well within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Magistrate to drop the
proceedings against the petitioner if he finds that he has been
unnecessarily roped in.

Page 5 of 5



11) In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of at the
threshold itself with a direction to the learned trial Magistrate to consider
the prayer of the petitioner for dropping of proceedings on its merits
after hearing the parties and thereafter pass the appropriate order in
accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of one
month from the date a copy of this order is made available to learned
trial Magistrate.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
11.05.2026
Sarveeda Nissar
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Sarveeda Nissar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
every page at bottom left side
12.05.2026 17:58