'Daughter seeks maintenance from father for domestic violence': Court court allows him to seek revocation

July 12, 2025 by News Desk

The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that magistrates have the authority to discontinue proceedings initiated under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if the facts presented do not justify further action. The ruling comes in response to a petition filed by a man challenging a case lodged by his adult daughter, Live Law reported.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, while hearing the case (CRM(M) No. 383 of 2025), stated that the petitioner—Peerzada Muneer Ahmad—has the legal right to approach the magistrate for cancellation of interim relief earlier granted to the complainant, his daughter Aaliya Anjum. The court also directed the magistrate to decide on any such application within one month of its submission.

The case originated from a familial dispute in which Anjum had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking financial relief. Prior to that, she had obtained an interim maintenance order of Rs 5,000 per month through proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That maintenance order was later stayed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge in Baramulla, following a revision plea by Ahmad.

In his petition before the High Court, Ahmad contended that his daughter, being an adult, was not entitled to seek financial assistance under the DV Act and alleged that the law was being misused in this instance. He also pointed out that the domestic violence complaint had been filed only after the interim CrPC order was stayed.

Justice Dhar, in his judgment, clarified that cases under Section 12 of the DV Act are quasi-civil, not strictly criminal. He emphasized that magistrates can re-examine interim orders and discontinue proceedings if the allegations are found baseless or if the parties involved appear to have been unnecessarily implicated.

“The magistrate would be acting within the scope of his authority if he chooses to withdraw interim orders where the facts don’t support the allegations,” the court observed. In doing so, the High Court referenced the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan to reinforce the legal precedent for such action.

While dismissing the petition, the High Court ordered that a copy of its ruling be forwarded to the concerned trial court for implementation.