IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.293/2026 Dr.MAJID ALI KHAN ...PETITIONER(S) Through:-Ms.Sami Shah, Advocate. Vs. MST. NEELOFAR AKHTER & ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S) Through:-None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 1) The petitioner has challenged the application filed by the respondents (hereinafter ‘the aggrieved person’) against him under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter ‘the DV Act’. Challenge has also been thrown to the proceedings emanating from the said application, which is pending before the Court of learned Forest Magistrate, Srinagar. 2) As per the case of the petitioner, respondent No.1 who happens to be his wife, has filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking monetary compensation as well as order of protection before the Court of learned Forest Magistrate, Srinagar. It has been alleged that matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 has come to an end by way of Khula on 13.08.2021. According to the petitioner right from the first day of Nikah he has tried to maintain good relations with respondent No.1, but she voluntarily out of her own will dissolved the marriage. It has been contended that the allegations relating to domestic violence made in the impugned petition against the petitioner are absolutely false and frivolous and that the petitioner has always provided to respondent No.1 as also to the minor child every comfort. It has been submitted that the petitioner made sincere efforts to prevent the marriage from being dissolved but without any success. According to the petitioner, the behaviour of respondent No.1 has not remained up to the mark and she has allowed her parental family to interfere in the matrimonial affairs, which resulted in breakdown of matrimonial ties. 3) It has been submitted that vide interim order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, interim monetary compensation of Rs.7000/- per month has been directed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents, which order according to the petitioner has not been passed by the trial Court in accordance with law. 4) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed objections to the petition and he has also sought dropping of proceedings before the learned trial Magistrate but vide order dated 02.05.2026, the learned trial Magistrate has held that the prayer of the petitioner for dropping of proceedings is not maintainable on the ground that a Magistrate’s Court is not vested with power to pass such order. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 6) The petitioner is aggrieved of impugned application filed by respondents under Section 12 of the DV Act as also order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, whereby ex-parte interim monetary compensation has been awarded in favour of respondents. 7) So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution. So, the trial Magistrate, after obtaining the 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 learned Magistrate would be well within his jurisdiction to cancel the interim order of monetary compensation if he, upon going through the response of the husband and his relatives, finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in or that no case for grant of interim monetary compensation is made out. Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV 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. 8) In my aforesaid view, I am supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 446. The Supreme Court in the said case has observed that scope of notice under Section 12 of the DV Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the Statute so that after considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued. 9) In view of the above discussion and the law on the subject, it is clear that a Magistrate has power to revoke the proceedings initiated against a person in terms of Section 12 of the DV Act, if and when the Magistrate finds that there is no ground to proceed against such person. 10) In the instant case, the petitioner has already filed reply to the impugned application before the learned trial Magistrate. In view of the legal position enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (Supra), there is no legal impediment for the learned trial Magistrate to drop the proceedings against the petitioner, if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant so. The Supreme Court has clearly held in the aforesaid case that proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not in strict sense criminal in nature, as such bar to alter or revoke an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these proceedings. Thus, refusal of the learned Magistrate to consider the prayer of petitioner for dropping of proceedings on merits amounts to failure on his part to exercise the jurisdiction vested with him. It will be well within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Magistrate to drop the proceedings against the petitioner if he finds that he has been unnecessarily roped in. Page 5 of 5 11) In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of at the threshold itself with a direction to the learned trial Magistrate to consider the prayer of the petitioner for dropping of proceedings on its merits after hearing the parties and thereafter pass the appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is made available to learned trial Magistrate. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 11.05.2026 Sarveeda Nissar 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 12.05.2026 17:58