Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mohammad Iqbal Khatana & Ors vs Naseera Begum on 1 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
S. No.38
Regular List
,,, HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) No.213/2024
Mohammad Iqbal Khatana & Ors
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr.Shabir Ahmad Shah, Advocate
V/s
Naseera Begum
... ..Respondent(s)
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
01.07.2025
1. The petitioners have challenged the petition filed by the
respondents against them under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter “the
D.V.Act”), which is stated to be pending before the Court of
Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Kralpora.
2. As per case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 entered into
wedlock with the respondent in the year 2019. Petitioners
No.2 and 3 happen to be parents of petitioner No.1 and
petitioner No.4 happens to be elder brother of petitioner No.1.
It has been alleged that initially the parties were living happily
together but lateron the respondent started to quarrel with
petitioner No.1 on petty issues. It has been further pleaded that
due to cruel behavior of the respondent towards her husband,
the matrimonial relationship between the two ran into rough
weather. It has also been submitted that conduct of the
respondent towards the petitioners has always remained
abusive. It has been submitted that the respondent was unable
to conceive, as a result of which she went into mental
depression and left her matrimonial home. It has further been
submitted that the petitioners extended their possible co-
operation and support to the respondent but still she did not
prove to be a true and faithful Muslim wife.
3. The petitioners have challenged the petition filed by the
respondent against them before the learned trial Magistrate on
the grounds that there was no domestic incident report
available with the learned trial Magistrate and without there
being any prima facie case for taking cognizance against the
petitioners, process has been issued against them. It has been
further submitted that the respondent has resorted to impugned
proceedings with a view to traumatize the petitioners. It has
also been submitted that the pleadings of the respondent are
contradictory, inasmuch as, at one place she says she was
unable to conceive and at another place she says that she has
three children.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused
the material on record.
CM(M)No.213/2024 2|P a g e
5. 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, as such, the application deserves to be quashed.
6. 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.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law on the subject,
it is clear that the Magistrate has power to revoke the
CM(M)No.213/2024 3|P a g e
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.
8. 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. 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.
9. 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
01.07.2025
Sarveeda Nissar
1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
CM(M)No.213/2024 4|P a g e
Sarveeda Nissar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
every page at bottom left side
02.07.2025 14:34