Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/27/2026 of ASIF AHMAD MIR Vs MEHVISH AJAZ AND ANOTHER on 8 September 2026
S. No.45 Regular list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M)/27/2026 CM/284/2026 Asif Ahmad Mir (Age 33 Years) S/O Mohammad Sultan Mir R/O Abi Nowpora, Nai sadak, Near Muskan Resorts Khateeja Masjid, Srinagar Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad Khan,
S. No.45
Regular list
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M)/27/2026
CM/284/2026
Asif Ahmad Mir (Age 33 Years)
S/O Mohammad Sultan Mir
R/O Abi Nowpora, Nai sadak,
Near Muskan Resorts Khateeja Masjid,
Srinagar
Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad Khan, Advocate.
Vs.
1. Mehvish Ajaz (Age 29 Years)
W/O Asif Ahmad Mir
D/O Ajaz Ahmad Wani
R/O Abi Nowpora, Nai sadak,
Near Muskan Resorts
Khateeja Masjid, Srinagar
At present: Bonpora, Batamaloo, Srinagar.
2. Aleena Asif (Age 14 Years)
D/O Asif Ahmad Mir
Through her Mother Mehvish Ajaz
W/O Asif Ahmad Mir
D/O Ajaz Ahmad Wani
R/O Abi Nowpora, Nai sadak,
Near Muskan Resorts
Khateeja Masjid, Srinagar
At present: Bonpora, Batamaloo, Srinagar.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Waqar Shamas, Advocate.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
08.09.2026
1. Petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks setting aside of the order dated 27.12.2025 passed by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar in case titled “Mehvish Ajaz & Anr vs. Asif Ahmad Mir & Ors., a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), whereby levy warrant was issued for recovery of an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as maintenance in favour of the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents, while stating that much progress has been made in the case before the trial court, as such, respondents do not contest the petition with regard to the impugned order and fairly concedes that the petition may be allowed to the extent of quashing of the impugned order.
3. In view of the submissions made, petition is allowed and impugned order dated 27.12.2025, is quashed.
4. The trial court is, however, requested to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.
5. Disposed of, accordingly, along with connected application(s).
;
(MA CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 08.09.2026 “Hilal”