S. No.139 Suppl.1 List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH , AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.277/2026 \

ROUF AHMAD MIR & OTHERS …..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr.G.M.Shah, Advocate V/s MST ADFARA REHMAN … ..Respondent(s)

Through: None CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER

06.05.2026

1. The petitioners through the medium of present petition have challenged order dated 12.11.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganderbal (hereinafter ‘the Appellate Court’), whereby appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter ‘the DV Act’), filed by the respondent against order dated 11.11.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal (hereinafter ‘the trial Magistrate’) has been allowed and the aforesaid order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been set aside.

2. It appears that the respondent (hereinafter ‘the aggrieved person’) filed the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act against the petitioners before the learned trial Magistrate. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner No.1 happens to be the husband of the aggrieved person. In the petition the aggrieved person pleaded that she was married to petitioner No.1 in the year 2020 and she joined him in her matrimonial home on 10.10.2021, whereafter she was subjected to domestic violence and cruel treatment by petitioner No.1. It was also alleged that petitioner No.2, who happens to be her father-in-law, used to occasionally molest her, which caused great mental agony and humiliation to the aggrieved person. According to the aggrieved person, the petitioners were picking frequent quarrels with her on insignificant matters and they were subjecting her to verbal, physical and mental cruelty. She was expelled by petitioner No.1 from her matrimonial home and was deprived of shelter and maintenance.

3. It seems that initially learned trial Magistrate passed an ex parte interim order dated 24.05.2022, whereby petitioner No.1 was directed to pay interim monetary compensation of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the aggrieved person and he was further directed to provide one room alongwith a washroom to her for residential purpose with a further direction not to commit any kind of domestic violence against her person.

4. The petitioners filed their objections before the trial Court in which they admitted that aggrieved person is wife of petitioner No.1. It was alleged by the petitioners that respondent No.1 conceived but subsequently aborted the pregnancy without the consent and knowledge of petitioner No.1. The petitioners denied the allegations of cruelty and molestation and claimed that all the allegations regarding domestic violence are absolutely false. According to the petitioners, the aggrieved person left the matrimonial home out of her own volition and, despite best efforts of petitioner No.1, the differences between the two could not be reconciled and the aggrieved person refused to return to the matrimonial home. The petitioners further claimed that the assertion of aggrieved person that he is earning Rs.80,000/- per month is incorrect and that he is earning a modest salary and presently he has been suspended from service on account of complaint lodged by the aggrieved person against him.

5. The learned trial Magistrate, after considering the pleadings of the parties and taking into account statement of aggrieved person recorded during the trial of the case, came to the conclusion that no domestic violence has taken place against the aggrieved person, having regard to the inconsistency between her statement recorded before the Court and the assertions made in the petition. Vide order dated 11.11.2023 the learned trial Magistrate dismissed the application of aggrieved person under Section 23 of the DV Act.

6. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the aggrieved person by way of an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganderbal who vide impugned order dated 12.11.2025 has se