S. No.98 Suppl. 1 ,,,HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.199 of 2025 Qamran Rashid Sheikh & Ors …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Saleem Gul, Advocate V/s Uzma Nazir & Anr. … ..Respondent(s) Through : None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 23.05.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged petition filed by the respondents against them under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter “the D.V.Act”). 2. As per case of petitioners, petitioner No.1 entered into wedlock with respondent No.1 in the year 2020 as per the Muslim Personal Law and out of the said wedlock one male child (respondent No.2) was born. It has been alleged that respondent No.1 without any justifiable cause left her matrimonial house and despite repeated requests and efforts made by petitioner No.1 and his family for reconciliation, she did not return to her matrimonial house. It has been submitted that there was no instance of domestic violence or cruelty ever committed by the petitioners. However, respondent No.1 in order to extract money and cause harassment to the petitioner has arrayed them as respondents in the impugned petition. It CM(M)No.199/2025 2 | P a g e has been submitted that learned trial Magistrate without appreciating the controversy has directed petitioner No.1 to pay monthly interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent No.1 though the petitioner No.1 earns a meager income of Rs.13000/- per month. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 4. The main ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioners while impugning the petition filed by the respondents is that no instance of domestic violence has taken place against respondent No.1, as such, the application deserves to be quashed. 5. So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution and, therefore, a Magistrate, after obtaining 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 Magistrate would be well within his jurisdiction to cancel the interim order passed by him, if upon going through the response of the husband and his relatives, he finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in or no case for grant of interim order is made out. Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.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. I am supported in taking the aforesaid view by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 SCC Online SC 466. CM(M)No.199/2025 3 | P a g e 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law on the subject, it is clear that the Magistrate has power to revoke the proceedings initiated against a person in terms of Section 12 of the D.V.Act, if and when the Magistrate finds that there is no ground to proceed against such person. Therefore, in the instant case it will be open to the petitioners to make an application before the learned Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings against them and to revoke the order relating to award of interim monetary compensation in favour of respondents. 7. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion and without going into merits of the contentions raised, it is provided that the petitioners may file an application before the learned Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings against them and for revocation of order granting interim monetary compensation to the respondents. In case the same is done, the learned Magistrate shall, after hearing both the parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within one month from the date such application is filed by the petitioners. 8. This petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Magistrate. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 23.05.2025 Sarveeda Nissar 1. 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 26.05.2025 18:06