Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CRM(M)/56/2026 of AJAZ AHMAD DAR Vs NEELOFAR HASSAN AND ANOTHER on 4 March 2026
Suppl List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 56/2026 CrlM(133/2026) AJAZ AHMAD DAR Petitioner(s)… Through: Mr. Parvaiz Lone, Adv. Vs. NEELOFAR HASSAN AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI JUDGE ORDER 04.03.2026
S. No.136
Suppl List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 56/2026 CrlM(133/2026)
AJAZ AHMAD DAR
Petitioner(s)…
Through: Mr. Parvaiz Lone, Adv.
Vs.
NEELOFAR HASSAN AND ANOTHER
...Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI 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
04.03.2026
1. The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 17th December 2025 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla whereby the petitioner’s appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against an order dated 5th May 2025 passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Judge), Baramulla came to be rejected without accommodating the petitioner on condonation of delay involving 19 days in filing the appeal.
2. Given the nature of the facts being referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court reckons that the appellate court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla ought to have stayed away from such a hyper-technical view related to delay of 19 days in filing the appeal by the petitioner and instead ought to have heard the appeal on merits by condoning delay.
3. Accordingly, this court disposes of this petition by setting aside order dated 17th December 2025 and directing the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla to restore the appeal to its original number and hear it on merits, notwithstanding the delay of 19 days which shall be deemed to have been condoned by this court by dint of this order.
4. Disposed of.
5. Copy of this order be forwarded to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla for information and compliance.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE SRINAGAR 04.03.2026 Hilal