HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No. 198/2025 CM Nos. 4013/2025 & 5435/2025 Aazim Khan & Anr. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate. Vs Shahreen Nissa .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Dinesh Verma, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 02.09.2025 1. The petitioners, through the medium of the present, petition have challenged order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sub-Registrar, Jammu in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘D.V. Act’), whereby interim monetary compensation of Rs. 8000/- per month has been awarded by the said court in favour of the respondent payable by petitioner No. 1. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of the case. 3. It appears that respondent has filed a petition under Section 12 of D.V. Act, against the petitioners before the learned Trial Magistrate. Petitioner No. 1-Aazim Sr. No. 11 2 CM(M) No. 198/2025 Khan, happens to be the husband of respondent herein. Learned Trial Magistrate on the basis of the assertions made in the application filed by respondent has passed the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 by exercising powers under Section 23 of the D.V. Act directing petitioner No. 1-herein to pay a monthly interim monetary compensation of Rs. 8000/- to the respondent. 4. An order under Section 23 of the D.V. Act directing payment of interim monetary compensation is appealable in nature in terms of Section 29 of the D.V. Act before the Sessions Judge. Besides this, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Trial Magistrate in ex-parte and the same has been made subject to objections from the other side. 5. The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without availing the alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order. The petitioners have also the option of approaching the learned Trial Magistrate by filing their reply to the petition and seek modification/vacation of order dated 07.04.2025, because the said order has been made subject to objections from the other side. 3 CM(M) No. 198/2025 6. Without taking recourse to either of aforesaid two remedies, the petitioners have rushed to this Court for assailing the impugned order. It is a settled law that the High Court would normally not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by an inferior court regarding which a litigant has an alternative and efficacious remedy available to him/her. As already stated, the petitioners have not only have the remedy of appeal available against the impugned order but they also have the remedy of approaching the learned Trial Magistrate to seek modification/vacation of the ex-parte interim order dated 07.04.2025. The instant petition is, therefore, not maintainable. 7. In view of the above, the instant petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly, leaving it to the petitioners to avail the appropriate alternative remedy as is available to them under law. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 02.09.2025 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No