S. No.30

Regular List

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

CM(M) No. 384/2023

CM(3111/2024) CM(8260/2023)

Date of pronouncement:17.12.2025

Uploaded on: 20.12.2025

FAROOQ AHMAD MALIK

…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani Advocate.

V/s

TAWHEEDA AKHTER AND ANR.

… ..Respondent(s)

Through : Mr. Malik Fahad-ul-Haq, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT(Oral)

1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter ‘the DV Act’) as also order dated 07.12.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Anantnag (hereinafter ‘the trial Magistrate’) alongwith order dated 28.02.2022 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge,

Anantnag (hereinafter ‘the Appellate Court’).

2. It appears that a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act came to be filed by the respondents before the learned trial Magistrate seeking residential order and monetary relief. Respondent No.1 happens to be ex-wife of the petitioner, whereas respondent No.2 happens to be minor son of the petitioner. In the petition it was alleged by the respondents that the petitioner has ill- treated respondent No.1 and has also threatened her of dire

consequences. It has been further pleaded that the respondents have been neglected and deserted by the petitioner. In the impugned petition it has been averred that the respondents had previously filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act and a petition under Section 488 J&K Cr.P.C and both these cases came to be compromised between the parties. In terms of the compromise the petitioner agreed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4000/- each to the respondents. It has also been submitted that the maintenance is being paid by the petitioner to the respondents. According to the respondents they have no other source of income and it is difficult for them to make both ends meet with this meager amount of monetary compensation. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is a Government employee who is drawing salary of Rs.80,000/- per month and besides this he is also owner of orchards. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner has contracted second marriage and the respondents are facing great hardships as respondent No.1 has undergone surgery and respondent No.2 has to incur expenses on education and other needs.

3. The petition was contested by the petitioner herein by filing the objections. He raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of petition on the ground that the earlier petition under Section 12 of the DV Act alongwith petition under Section 488 J&K Cr.P.C was compromised by the parties and as per the terms of compromise the respondents had undertaken not to go for any further litigation. It has also been pleaded by the petitioner that respondent No.1 has been divorced and she is no longer living with the petitioner, as such, there is no domestic relationship between them. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is paying maintenance as per the terms of the compromise and there is also provision for enhancing the same by 10% after every two years.

4. The learned trial Magistrate vide impugned order dated 07.12.2020 refused to grant interim monetary compensation in favour of respondent No.1 but after observing that the compromise arrived at between the parties is not binding on respondent No.2, who is a minor, the learned trial Magistrate has proceeded to direct the petitioner to pay school admission fee, recurring educational fee as well as expenses required for procuring books and uniform and other educational expenses for the purpose of his proper education. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Appellate Court, who vide impugned order dated 28.02.2022 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate.

5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned proceeding