S. No.10 Regular List , IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH , AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.764/2025 CrlMNo.1927/2025 ZAKIR HUSSAIN BHAT AND ORS.

…..Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

Through: Mr.Tahir Ahmad Bhat, Advocate V/s RAHINA SHAFI … ..Respondent(s)

Through : None CORAM:

HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER

08.12.2025

1. The petitioners through the medium of present petition have challenged proceedings emanating from petition filed by the respondent against them under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter for short “the D.V.Act”), which is stated to be pending before the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Anantnag (hereinafter referred to as „the trial Magistrate‟). Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 24.10.2025, whereby the learned trial Magistrate has issued process against the petitioners.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of the case.

3. The respondent claiming herself to be the wife of petitioner No.1 has filed petition under Section 12 of the D.V.Act before learned trial Magistrate in which petitioners No.2 and 3, who happen to be brother and father of petitioner No.1 have also been arrayed as respondents. In the application under Section 12 of the D.V.Act, the respondent has alleged that she is a victim of domestic violence, continuous harassment and torture at the hands of the petitioners, particularly petitioner No.1. She has pleaded that she has entered into a wedlock with petitioner No.1 on 02.08.2025 at District Court premises Anantnag. It has been further pleaded that after solemnization of marriage the respondent has joined the company of petitioner No.1 as his legally wedded wife, but the petitioners No. 2 and 3 started interfering in their married life. It has been pleaded by the respondent that petitioner No.1 is already married having two male children from the said wedlock but he concealed this fact from the respondent. It has been pleaded that petitioner No.1 has now abandoned the respondent and she has been forced to stay with her relatives.

4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned petition and the order whereby process has been issued against the petitioners on the grounds that the Nikahnama on which the respondent is placing reliance, has been executed by petitioner No.1 under force and coercion. It has been claimed that there is no relationship of husband and wife between the respondent and petitioner No.1. It has also been pleaded that there are no allegations with regard to domestic violence in the impugned petition and there was no domestic relationship between the parties.

5. 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. So, the trial Magistrate, after obtaining the response from the husband and his relatives, is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings. The Magistrate is also competent to drop the proceedings against all or any of the relatives of the husband if he, upon going through their response, finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in. 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.

6. 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 D.V 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. The Court further held that the matter stands on a different footing and the dictum in Adalat Prasad‟s case ((2004) 7 SCC 338) would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is