Serial No. 62 Regular Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 323/2023 CrlM(674/2025) CrlM(788/2023) CrlM(789/2023) c/w i)CRM(M) 266/2023 CrlM(661/2023) IQBAL AHMED WAFAI AND ANR. …Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Prince Hamza, Advocate. (CRM (M) No. 323/2023) Mr. Mir Manzoor Ah, Advocate. (CRM (M) No. 266/2023) VERSUS SHEEMA IQBAL SHABNAM. Through: Mr. S.H. Thakur, Advocate. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 28.07.2025 CRM(M) 323/2023 01. The petitioners have challenged Order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the D.V. Act”). Vide the impugned order, the learned Appellate Court has modified the Order of interim compensation that has been awarded in favour of the respondents by enhancing the same from Rs. 3500 per month to Rs. 5000/- per month each. 02. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 03. It appears that the respondent along with her minor children has filed a petition under Section 12 of the D.V Act before the court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate, PT and E, Srinagar (hereinafter referred as “the trial Magistrate”) against the petitioners herein. It also appears that the learned Magistrate while exercising his powers under Section 23 of the D.V Act has, after hearing both the parties, passed order dated 17.02.2024, whereby interim compensation of Rs. 3,500/- per month each has been awarded in favour of the applicants namely Sheema Iqbal Shabnum and Hadiqa Iqbal. 04. The aforesaid Order came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of an appeal before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. It seems that the said order was also challenged by the respondent and her two minor daughters by way of an appeal before the same Court seeking enhancement in interim monetary compensation. Both the appeals came to be decided by the learned Appellate Court in terms of impugned order dated 15.06.2023, whereby the quantum of interim compensation granted by the learned Magistrate in favour of the applicants namely Sheema Iqbal and Hadiqa Iqbal has been enhanced from Rs. 3,500/- per month to 5,000/- per month each. 05. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court to the extent of respondent namely Ms. Sheema Iqbal only by contending that the interim compensation granted by the Appellate Court is on higher side because the said Court has not taken into consideration the liability of petitioner No.1. It has been further submitted that the allegations made in the petition filed by the respondents against the petitioners are absolutely false and frivolous and that the learned trial Magistrate despite direction from this Court is not proceeding with the case with reasonable dispatch. 06. So far as the relationship of petitioner No.1 and respondents is concerned, the same is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that petitioner No.1 is a Government Employee and in fact petitioner No.1 has admitted that his net salary is Rs. 63,996/- per month. Merely because the petitioner has liability towards his home loan and vehicle loan, does not offer a ground to avoid the payment of bare sustenance to his wife i.e. respondent No.1. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month as an interim monetary compensation in the present times in fact appears to be grossly inadequate. The petitioners by approaching this Court for challenging the enhancement of a meagre amount of Rs. 1,500/- particularly keeping in view the good financial status of the petitioner No.1, appear to have misused the process of law thereby dragging the respondents to contest the case before this Court. 07. It is a trite law that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, cannot substitute the opinion of the inferior Court with its own opinion particularly in a case where the discretion exercised by the inferior Court is neither perverse nor illegal in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court. The present petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. 08. Learned trial Magistrate is, however, directed to comply with the directions passed by this Court on 25th of March 2024 in CM No. 83/2024 whereby he has been asked to decide the main petition within a period of six months. CRM(M) 266/2023 Adjourned at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The Registry is directed to delink this petition and list it separately on 26th of August, 2025. In the meanwhile, xerox copy of the trial court record be summoned. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 28.07.2025 Showkat Khan