CM No. 7136/2025 In CM(M) No. 474/2025 CM No. 7137/2025 Caveat 2525/2025 12 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 7136/2025 In CM(M) No. 474/2025 CM No. 7137/2025 Caveat 2525/2025 Date of pronouncement: 03.11.2025 Uploaded on : 04.11.2025 Bashir Ahmad Ganie ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Manzoor ul Haq Wani, Adv. V/s Zaara Tawheed ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Imshan Ahad, Adv. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER(ORAL) 03.11.2025 CM No. 7136/2025: For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the requirement of filing certified copies of the order dated 25.09.2025 and order dated 21.02.2025 are dispensed with. CM disposed of. CM(M) No. 474/2025: 1. Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has thrown challenge to order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar whereby order CM No. 7136/2025 In CM(M) No. 474/2025 CM No. 7137/2025 Caveat 2525/2025 dated 21.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub Judge) Srinagar has been upheld and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent as interim monitory compensation in a proceeding under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter DV Act) 2. Issue notice to the respondent. 3. Mr. Imshan Ahad, Advocate who is on caveat accepts notice. Caveat is accordingly discharged. 4. Heard and considered. 5. It appears that the respondent who happens to be major daughter of the petitioner has filed an application under Section 12 read with Section 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the DV Act before the court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub Judge), Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the trial Magistrate), seeking inter alia relief in the form of monitory compensation. The learned trial Magistrate, after hearing the parties, passed order dated 21.02.2025 whereby interim monitory compensation in the amount of Rs. 7000/- was passed in favour of the respondent against the petitioner. This CM No. 7136/2025 In CM(M) No. 474/2025 CM No. 7137/2025 Caveat 2525/2025 order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal under Section 29 of DV Act before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar who vide impugned order dated 25.09.2025 while upholding the order of the learned trial Magistrate enhanced the monetary compensation from Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. 6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that it was not open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to enhance the monetary compensation when no grievance was projected by the respondent against the order of learned trial Magistrate by filing appeal against the said order. It has been further contended that the respondent is major daughter and she has never lived with the petitioner as such, she is not entitled to any monitory compensation from the petitioner. 7. So far as the contention of the petitioner that because the respondent is major as such, she is not entitled to monetary compensation from the petitioner is concerned, the same is misconceived for the reasons that while provisions contained under Section 125 of Cr.PC or Section 144 BNSS specifically CM No. 7136/2025 In CM(M) No. 474/2025 CM No. 7137/2025 Caveat 2525/2025 provide for grant of maintenance only in favour of minor children but there is no such legal or statutory bar in claiming maintenance by a major daughter against her father in a proceeding under Section 12 of the DV Act. 8. The other contention raised by the petitioner is that the parties have never resided together as such, there is no domestic relationship between them. It is an admitted fact that the respondent happens to be daughter of the petitioner as such, at some point of time, they must have resided together. It is a settled law that DV Act can be invoked even for past domestic relationship irrespective of the fact whether the parties at the time of filing of the petition are living together or not. Therefore, the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, is without any substance 9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while exercising his appellate jurisdiction had no power to enhance the monetary compensation in favour of the respondent is concerned, there appears to be merit in the said submission. The respondent CM No. 7136/2025 In CM(M) No. 474/2025 CM No. 7137/2025 Caveat 2525/2025 had, not filed any appeal against the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate meaning thereby that she had no grievance with regard to the quantum of compensation that was granted by the learned trial Magistrate in her favour. In these circumstances, it was not open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to enhance the monetary compensation in favour of the respondent without there being any appeal on behalf of the respondent. The order impugned to the extent of enhancement of the monetary compensation in favour of the respondent is, therefore, not sustainable in law 10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar to the extent of enhancing the monetary compensation in favour of the respondent is set aside and the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate is upheld. 11. Disposed of as above. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 03.11.2025 Aasif