ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of application filed by the respondent no.1 herein U/Ss 12 & 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘DV Act’), wherein the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate (Sub Registrar), Jammu (hereinafter referred as ‘Trial Court’), vide order dated 06.02.2023 ordered the petitioner no.1 herein to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to complainant (respondent no.1 herein) and ₹2,000/- to son of complainant (respondent no.2 herein) as interim maintenance which is impugned in the present petition.

2. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioners herein filed the instant petition. The impugned order has been challenged on various grounds including the main plea that the impugned application is not maintainable as the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it, as provided in Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

3. Despite notice to respondents, objections have not been filed. However, learned counsel for the respondents argued at bar that the alternative remedy was available to the petitioners for filing appeal before Session Court but they have not chosen to it, as such, this petition is not maintainable and prayed for its dismissal.

4. Heard and considered.

5. Instead of going into the merits of the case, a preliminary point raised by learned counsel for the respondent is required to be determined as to whether the instant petition is maintainable when alternate remedy of challenging the impugned order was available to the petitioners. The impugned order has been passed under the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

6. Section 29 of the Act reads as under:-

“Appeal- There shall be an appeal to the court of Sessions within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondents, as the case may be, whichever is later.”

So, it can be discernible that as per Section 29 of the Act, all the orders passed under any of the provisions of the Act, are appealable.

7. This Court under Section 482 Cr.PC has inherent powers to exercise. It has been a consistent view of the Constitutional courts that when alternate efficacious remedy is available, the inherent jurisdiction of the court cannot be invoked. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case titled Waryam Singh & Anr. Vs. Amarnath & Anr., reported as 1954 AIR 215, was pleased to hold that the power vested with the High Court in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The Hon’ble Apex Court again in a case titled Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and Lasmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Anr. Vs. Pratapsingh Mohansingh Pardeshi reported as (1995) 6 SCC 576, reminded the High Courts that the inherent power cannot be assumed in terms of Article 227 as an unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardships of wrong decision. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law and justice.

8. This Court in an identical case titled Charanjeet Kour & Ors. Vs. Taranjeet Kour & Ors., reported as 2018 KLJ 312, has taken similar view with regard to the inherent power under Section 561-A J&K Cr.PC. This Court in a case titled Jatinder Nath Bakshi Vs. State of J&K & Ors., reported as 2009 (3) JKJ 679 (HC), had held that the power under Section 561-A J&K Cr.PC has to be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. This inherent power cannot be exercised on mere drop of hat or merely to correct any illegality committed by the subordinate court.

9. Impugned order by its nature is interim and ex parte order. Notice under section 12(4) is served to petitioners and impugned order is subject to o