A Magistrate has the jurisdiction to drop proceedings or revoke interim orders under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as such proceedings are quasi-criminal and not strictly criminal in nature.

ORDER

1) The petitioner has challenged the application filed by the respondents (hereinafter ‘the aggrieved person’) against him under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter ‘the DV Act’. Challenge has also been thrown to the proceedings emanating from the said application, which is pending before the Court of learned Forest Magistrate, Srinagar.

2) As per the case of the petitioner, respondent No.1 who happens to be his wife, has filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking monetary compensation as well as order of protection before the Court of learned Forest Magistrate, Srinagar. It has been alleged that matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 has come to an end by way of Khula on 13.08.2021. According to the petitioner right from the first day of Nikah he has tried to maintain good relations with respondent No.1, but she voluntarily out of her own will dissolved the marriage. It has been contended that the allegations relating to domestic violence made in the impugned petition against the petitioner are absolutely false and frivolous and that the petitioner has always provided to respondent No.1 as also to the minor child every comfort. It has been submitted that the petitioner made sincere efforts to prevent the marriage from being dissolved but without any success. According to the petitioner, the behaviour of respondent No.1 has not remained up to the mark and she has allowed her parental family to interfere in the matrimonial affairs, which resulted in breakdown of matrimonial ties.

3) It has been submitted that vide interim order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, interim monetary compensation of Rs.7000/- per month has been directed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents, which order according to the petitioner has not been passed by the trial Court in accordance with law.

4) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed objections to the petition and he has also sought dropping of proceedings before the learned trial Magistrate but vide order dated 02.05.2026, the learned trial Magistrate has held that the prayer of the petitioner for dropping of proceedings is not maintainable on the ground that a Magistrate’s Court is not vested with power to pass such order.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

6) The petitioner is aggrieved of impugned application filed by respondents under Section 12 of the DV Act as also order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, whereby ex-parte interim monetary compensation has been awarded in favour of respondents.

7) So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV 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 etc. is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings. The learned Magistrate would be well within his jurisdiction to cancel the interim order of monetary compensation if he, upon going through the response of the husband and his relatives, finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in or that no case for grant of interim monetary compensation is made out. Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV 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