SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 170

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
MAHAJABEENA – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMAD WASEEM MALIK AND OTHERS – Respondent
CM(M) 17 / 2026



Serial No.8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM (M) No.17/2026 Mahajabeena …Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad Khan, Advocate.

Vs.

Mohammad Waseem Malik AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

ORDER

22.01.2026

1. The petitioner-Ms. Mahajabeena came to petition the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, thereby seeking reliefs under different heads sourced to different sections of the said Act.

2. The following reliefs came to be sought in her said petition by the petitioner from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora:

a) Protection order under Section 18 in favor of complainant, prohibiting commission of any act(s) of domestic violence by granting an injunction against the Respondents.

b) Order under section 19, directing the respondent to provide the complainant accommodation at his house or in alternate a rented accommodation and pay the rent for the same and let the complainant live there peacefully.

c) Compensation order under Section 22, Directing the Respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 03 lakhs towards compensation for damages under the Protection of women from Domestic violence Act 2010 for causing her injuries including mental torture and emotional distress.

d) Interim Relief under Section 23, whereby respondent no.1 may be directed to give interim maintenance of Rs 10,000/- towards the applicant and to provide shelter to her (Separate application annexed).

e) Monetary relief under Section 20, may be granted in light of above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the complainant is completely without the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter and has no means to survive. Hence maintenance order may be granted in favor of complainant whereby respondent may be directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000/-

towards the complainant.

3. One of the reliefs solicited being an order under section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for directing the respondent No.1 to provide her accommodation at his house or in alternate rented accommodation and to pay the rent therefor.

4. Taking cognizance of said complaint, the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora, came to pass an order dated 08.02.2025 in which one of the directions which came to be passed is residence related direction whereby the petitioner’s husband Mohammad Waseem Malik-respondent No.1 herein as well as in the complaint came to be directed to provide one room, one kitchen and one washroom in his shared house.

5. Aggrieved of said order dated 08.02.2025, the respondents herein had come to prefer a petition CM(M) No. 91/2025 before this Court which came to be held as not maintainable in view of remedy of appeal being available under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Thus, by virtue of an order dated 26.12.2025 said CM (M) 91/2025 came to be dismissed.

6. The petitioner by virtue of an application dated 28.10.2025 had solicited the indulgence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora, to implement the directions as given in the order dated 08.02.2025 through CDPO- Wagoora, District Baramulla by taking assistance of concerned Police.

7. Feeling aggrieved that the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora is not taking due notice of said application dated 28.10.2025 seeking enforcement of order dated 08.02.2025, the petitioner came to this Court with a petition CM(M) No. 491/2025, which came to be disposed of at its very inception stage without putting the respondents therein to notice but with a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora to deal with said application of the petitioner in accordance with law to ensure that order is implemented.

8. On the other hand, the respondent no.2 herein Mohammad Sultan Malik (father-in-law of the petitioner) ventured to file a civil suit against

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top