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) 641

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
BASHARAT AHMAD BHAT – Appellant
Versus
YASMEEN SIDIQ AND OTHERS – Respondent
CRM(M) 302 / 2026



##PAGE1##

S. No.81

Suppl. List 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

,

AT SRINAGAR

CRM(M) No.302/2026

BASHARAT AHMAD BHAT

…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr.Gash Asrar-ul-Haq, Advocate

V/s

YASMEENA SIDIQ AND ORS

… ..Respondent(s)

Through: None

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

ORDER

12.05.2026

1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has

challenged order dated 23.04.2026 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Pulwama, whereby, while admitting the appeal

filed by the respondents against order dated 23.04.2026 passed

by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pampore in the

proceedings under Section 12/23 of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter ‘the DV Act’), the order

impugned passed by the learned Magistrate has been stayed.

2. Heard and Considered.

3. It seems that the respondents have filed a petition under

Section 12 of the DV Act before the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Pampore (hereinafter ‘the trial Magistrate’)

CRM(M) No.302/2026 1 | Pa ge

##PAGE2##

against the petitioner herein. In the said petition, an ex-parte

interim order came to be passed by the learned trial Magistrate

on 23.02.2026, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an

interim compensation of Rs.18,000/- per month to the

respondents herein and to provide a separate accommodation in

the form of two rooms in the shared house hold.

4. After filing of objections by the petitioner, the application

for grant of interim relief in terms of Section 23 of the DV Act

came to be disposed of by the learned trial Magistrate vide order

dated 23.04.2026. The learned Magistrate modified the interim

ex-parte order dated 23.02.2026 by providing that instead of

residence in the shared house hold, the petitioner herein shall

secure and provide suitable rented accommodation to the

respondents within a reasonable vicinity of the children’s school,

so as to ensure continuity of education.

5. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the

respondents before the Court of learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Pulwama by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the

DV Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while

entertaining the appeal, issued notice to the petitioner herein and

stayed the order passed by learned trial Magistrate on

23.04.2026 and clarified that the interim arrangement as

reflected in order dated 23.02.2026 shall continue to govern the

parties till further orders.

CRM(M) No.302/2026 2 | Pa ge

##PAGE3##

6. The petitioner instead of contesting the appeal before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge has rushed to this Court and

filed the present petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 528 of BNSS.

7. It has been contended that the learned Appellate Court has

committed a grave error in reviving interim ex-parte order dated

23.02.2026 passed by learned trial Magistrate, as the same stood

already modified by the learned trial Magistrate after hearing the

parties.

8. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is misconceived

and flawed, because the learned Appellate Court has, while

entertaining the appeal against the impugned order dated

23.04.2026 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, stayed the said

order, which in effect revives the interim ex-parte order dated

23.02.2026 passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Once the

final order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 23.04.2026

was stayed by the learned Appellate Court, a cloud is cast on the

said order and it revives the position which was existing prior to

the passing of the said order. This is what has been clarified by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the

impugned order dated 30.04.2026.

9. Thus no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned

order. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against the

CRM(M) No.302/2026 3 | Pa ge

##PAGE4##

interim order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, the proper course for him is to contest the appeal

on its merits and project all

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