105 Supp HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 182/2025 CM 2769/2025 Hassan Jaffar Hajam ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Aadil Parray, Adv. V/s Zoona Mehreen ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 09.05.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Railway Magistrate, Srinagar whereby in a petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as DV Act), the petitioner has been asked to pay interim monthly compensation of Rs. 4000/- to the respondent. Challenge has also been thrown to the proceedings initiated by the P a g e | 2 CM(M) 182/2025 CM 2769/2025 respondent against the petitioner before the learned trial court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. The ground urged for impugning the proceedings and the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate is that, a settlement was arrived at between the parties before the court of Principal Family Court, Srinagar in a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It has been submitted that in terms of the compromise, the petitioner was to pay monthly amount of Rs. 1000/- to the respondent and he was also to prepare the documents with respect to Mehar mentioned in the Nikah Nama and get the same registered. It was also agreed by the respondent that she will withdraw the petition under DV Act. The petitioner had further agreed that he will bear expenses in respect of the items purchased by the respondent and the parties had agreed to approach the concerned authorities for proper registration of the documents as mentioned in the P a g e | 3 CM(M) 182/2025 CM 2769/2025 Nikah Nama. It was also agreed that the respondent shall resume matrimonial relation and in default, the respondent shall pay the amount back to the petitioner. 4. It has been contended that the petitioner has adhered to all the terms of the settlement accepted by the parties before the court of Principal Family Court, Srinagar but the respondent instead of withdrawing the complaint under DV Act, has obtained the impugned order from the learned trial Magistrate. On this ground, it has been contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court is not in accordance with law and that impugned proceedings, cannot proceed against the petitioner. 5. So far as the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate under Section 23 of the DV Act is concerned, the same is appealable before the court of Sessions in terms of Section 29 of the DV Act. Without availing the said remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court and invoked its supervisory jurisdiction. The petition, so far as it relates to P a g e | 4 CM(M) 182/2025 CM 2769/2025 assailing of order dated 20.12.2024 is concerned, is therefore, not maintainable. 6. The contention of the petitioner that the proceedings against him are not maintainable in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Family Court, is also without any merit for the reason that the learned Magistrate while passing order dated 20.12.2024, has taken into account the factum of settlement that was arrived at between the parties. The learned Magistrate has noted the assertion of the respondent that the petitioner herein has failed to comply with the terms of the compromise, as a result of which, the respondent had chosen not to withdraw the application made under DV Act. 7. The question whether the petitioner has failed to adhere to the terms of the compromise or whether the compromise has been flouted by the respondent, is an issue which cannot be determined by this Court in these proceedings. The said issue has to be determined by the learned trial Magistrate during trial of the case and it shall be open to the petitioner to plead P a g e | 5 CM(M) 182/2025 CM 2769/2025 and prove that the terms of the settlement have been violated by the respondents. At this stage and in these proceedings, it is not open to this Court to express any opinion about the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court declines to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in the instant case. The petition is dismissed accordingly. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 09.05.2025 Aasif