SRINAGAR: In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a Magistrate is empowered to drop proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), if no grounds are made out to proceed further. The court made the observation while disposing of a petition filed by Peerzada Muneer Ahmad, who challenged proceedings initiated against him by his adult daughter under the DV Act.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the case CRM(M) No. 383 of 2025, ruled that the petitioner is entitled to approach the trial Magistrate seeking revocation of the interim monetary relief granted to the respondent—his daughter—under Section 12 of the DV Act. The court directed that any such application should be decided by the Magistrate within one month of its filing.
The case stems from a dispute between Ahmad and his daughter, Aaliya Anjum, who had filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking relief against her father. She had earlier moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), in which she was initially granted an interim relief of Rs 5,000 per month. However, that order was later stayed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla, on a revision petition filed by the father.
The petitioner argued that the domestic violence proceedings were initiated only after the interim maintenance order under CrPC was stayed and that the DV Act was being misused in this case. He further submitted that since the respondent is a major, she cannot seek monetary relief from her father under the DV Act.
Justice Dhar noted that proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not strictly criminal in nature and hence, a Magistrate retains the authority to revoke earlier orders if found unjustified. “The Magistrate would be well within his jurisdiction to cancel the interim order… if upon going through the response of the other side, he finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in or no case is made out,” the order stated.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022 SCC Online SC 466) in support of its view.
“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,” the judge observed.
Disposing of the petition, the court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the trial Magistrate for necessary compliance.
The ruling is expected to have implications for similar cases where interim orders under the DV Act are challenged on grounds of misuse or lack of merit.
