Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/591/2025 of NISAR AHMAD BHAT Vs JAMEELA BEGUM AND ORS. on 3 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 591/2025 NISAR AHMAD BHAT ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Prince Hamza, Adv. vice Mr. M Y Bhat, Sr. Adv. V/s JAMEELA BEGUM AND ORS. ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Adil, Adv. vice Mr. Syed Manzoor, Adv. Coram:
05
Regular
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) 591/2025
NISAR AHMAD BHAT
….. Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Prince Hamza, Adv.
vice Mr. M Y Bhat, Sr. Adv.
V/s
JAMEELA BEGUM AND ORS.
….. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Adil, Adv.
vice Mr. Syed Manzoor, Adv.
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
03.02.2026
1. The contesting respondent namely Mst. Jameela Begum, joined by her minor son Mohammad Saad, has invoked the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by institution of a petition before the court of Forest Magistrate (Sub Judge), Srinagar in which the parties named as respondents are Abdul Wahid Bhat-husband of said Mst. Jameela Begum Mst. Shameema and Mehraj- ud-din Bhat, both of P a g e | 2
whom are parents of Abdul Wahid Bhat and thus parents-in-law of Mst. Jameela Begum.
2. The court of Forest Magistrate (Sub Judge), Srinagar, by virtue of an order dated 02.08.2025, has placed directions in terms of Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
3. One of the directions so given is relatable to the residence of Mst. Jameela Begum and her son in the purported shared household where she is said to have last resided with her husband Abdul Wahid Bhat and her parents-in-law.
4. Still aggrieved of said order dated 02.08.2025, the respondent-Mst. Jameela had preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, 2005 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar whereby the appeal came to be rejected.
5. It is against said adjudication of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar effected vide an order dated P a g e | 3
01.11.2023 in the appeal preferred by said Mst. Jameela Begum against her husband and parents-in- law that the petitioner herein namely Mr. Nazir Ahmad Bhat, who is a non-party to the proceedings in the court below, is coming forward with the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of order dated 01.11.2025 of the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal of Mst. Jameela Begum against the order dated 02.08.2025 of the court of Forest Magistrate (Sub Judge) Srinagar.
6. The grievance of the petitioner against order dated 01.11.2025 is to the extent that plea of the petitioner seeking intervention in the appeal proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, came to be declined.
7. The petitioner had sought his impleadment at the appellate stage of the case before the court of 1st P a g e | 4
Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar which was reckoned to be an intervention of a stranger and therefore first by rejecting the said application of the petitioner for impleadment, the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar then proceeded to adjudicate the appeal leading to dismissal of the said appeal.
8. Thus, there is no lis as on date viz-a-viz the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar for the petitioner as a non-party to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court with respect to order dated 01.11.2025.
9. In light of above, this petition is reckoned to be seriously misconceived venture on the part of the petitioner for reasons best known to him. The only thing which this Court can infer from institution of present proceeding is to somehow prejudice the cause of the respondent Mst. Jameela Begum who is purported to be an aggrieved women having resorted to the provisions of the Protection of Women from P a g e | 5
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in which she even did not name the petitioner herein as a party to the dispute which is surely of a matrimonial nature involving her status and corresponding rights related therewith being wife of Abdul Wahid Bhat and daughter-in-law of Mst. Shameema and Mehraj-ud-din Bhat.
10. In light of aforesaid, the petition is held to be seriously misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rahul Bharti)
Judge
SRINAGAR 03.02.2026 Aasif