CRM(M) No.302/2026 1 | P a g e S. No.81 Suppl. List 2 ,,,IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.302/2026 BASHARAT AHMAD BHAT …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Gash Asrar-ul-Haq, Advocate V/s YASMEENA SIDIQ AND ORS … ..Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 12.05.2026 1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has challenged order dated 23.04.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pulwama, whereby, while admitting the appeal filed by the respondents against order dated 23.04.2026 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pampore in the proceedings under Section 12/23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter ‘the DV Act’), the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate has been stayed. 2. Heard and Considered. 3. It seems that the respondents have filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pampore (hereinafter ‘the trial Magistrate’) CRM(M) No.302/2026 2 | P a g e against the petitioner herein. In the said petition, an ex-parte interim order came to be passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 23.02.2026, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an interim compensation of Rs.18,000/- per month to the respondents herein and to provide a separate accommodation in the form of two rooms in the shared house hold. 4. After filing of objections by the petitioner, the application for grant of interim relief in terms of Section 23 of the DV Act came to be disposed of by the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 23.04.2026. The learned Magistrate modified the interim ex-parte order dated 23.02.2026 by providing that instead of residence in the shared house hold, the petitioner herein shall secure and provide suitable rented accommodation to the respondents within a reasonable vicinity of the children’s school, so as to ensure continuity of education. 5. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the respondents before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pulwama by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while entertaining the appeal, issued notice to the petitioner herein and stayed the order passed by learned trial Magistrate on 23.04.2026 and clarified that the interim arrangement as reflected in order dated 23.02.2026 shall continue to govern the parties till further orders. CRM(M) No.302/2026 3 | P a g e 6. The petitioner instead of contesting the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rushed to this Court and filed the present petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS. 7. It has been contended that the learned Appellate Court has committed a grave error in reviving interim ex-parte order dated 23.02.2026 passed by learned trial Magistrate, as the same stood already modified by the learned trial Magistrate after hearing the parties. 8. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is misconceived and flawed, because the learned Appellate Court has, while entertaining the appeal against the impugned order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, stayed the said order, which in effect revives the interim ex-parte order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Once the final order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 23.04.2026 was stayed by the learned Appellate Court, a cloud is cast on the said order and it revives the position which was existing prior to the passing of the said order. This is what has been clarified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order dated 30.04.2026. 9. Thus no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against the CRM(M) No.302/2026 4 | P a g e interim order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the proper course for him is to contest the appeal on its merits and project all his grievances before the learned Appellate Court. Without exercising the said option, the petitioner cannot be allowed to rush to this Court, that too at the stage when the appeal has recently been filed by the respondents before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is not a case where learned Additional Sessions Judge has caused any delay in deciding the appeal that would have persuaded this Court to entertain the present petition. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the interim ex-parte order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at this stage. The petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pulwama for early disposal of the appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall do well to expedite the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner against order passed by learned trial Magistrate. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 12.05.2026 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 13.05.2026 17:09