JUDGEMENT/ORDER : 1. Respondents herein have filed a complaint against the petitioner under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010, and the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (Forest Magistrate), Srinagar (hereinafter referred as trial court), vide order dated 12.02.2019 ordered the petitioner herein to pay Rs.4000/- per month to his wife (respondent No.1 herein) and Rs.3000/- each to his minor children (respondents 2 to 4 herein); furthermore, it was ordered to provide one room, kitchen and bathroom in the shared household or in alternative rental accommodation at suitable place; also the petitioner herein was restrained from committing any act of violence upon the respondents herein. 2. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner herein preferred this petition under Section 561-A J&K Cr.P.C, which is akin to Section 482 Central Cr.P.C, for quashment of the impugned order issued by the trial court. The impugned order has been challenged on many counts including the plea that the petitioner had already divorced his wife on 27.07.2018. 3. Respondents have filed their objections to the petition contending therein that the petitioner had efficacious remedy of appeal to be filed before the Sessions court, as such, this petition is not maintainable and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The instant petition was adjourned on many occasions. On the last date of hearing i.e., 23.12.2021, the matter was adjourned at the request of Mr. Ahmad Javaid, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Zahoor A. Shah, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, and this Court made it explicitly clear that in case learned arguing counsel does not appear on the next date of hearing, fixed for today, in that eventuality the matter shall be heard and determined in his absence. 5. Today also, the petitioner has remained un-represented, and the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter may be heard and decided in view of the emergent nature of the case. This is how the present case is taken up for final consideration. 6. Heard, considered. 7. Instead of going into the merits of the case, a preliminary point raised by learned counsel for the respondents is required to be determined as to whether the instant petition is maintainable when alternate remedy of challenging the impugned order was available to the petitioner. 6. Heard, considered. 7. Instead of going into the merits of the case, a preliminary point raised by learned counsel for the respondents is required to be determined as to whether the instant petition is maintainable when alternate remedy of challenging the impugned order was available to the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010. Section 29 of the Act reads as under:- "Appeal-There shall be an appeal to the court of Sessions within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondents, as the case may be, whichever is later." 8. So, it can be deduced that as per Section 29 of the Act, all the orders passed under any of the provisions of the Act, are appealable. 9. This Court under Section 561-A J&K Cr.P.C has inherent powers to exercise. It has been a consistent view of the Constitutional courts that when alternate efficacious remedy is available, the inherent jurisdiction of the court cannot be invoked. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled Waryam Singh & Anr. Vs. Amarnath & Anr., reported as 1954 AIR 215, was pleased to hold that the power vested with the High Court in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The Hon'ble Apex Court again in a case titled Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and Lasmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Anr. Vs. Pratapsingh Mohansingh Pardeshi reported as (1995) 6 SCC 576 , reminded the High Courts that the inherent power cannot be assumed in terms of Article 227 as an unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardships of wrong decision. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law and justice. This Court in an identical case titled Charanjeet Kour & Ors. Vs. Taranjeet Kour & Ors., reported as 2018 KLJ 312 , has taken similar view with regard to the inherent power under Section 561-A J&K Cr.P.C. This Court in a case titled Jatinder Nath Bakshi Vs. This Court in an identical case titled Charanjeet Kour & Ors. Vs. Taranjeet Kour & Ors., reported as 2018 KLJ 312 , has taken similar view with regard to the inherent power under Section 561-A J&K Cr.P.C. This Court in a case titled Jatinder Nath Bakshi Vs. State of J&K & Ors., reported as 2009 (3) JKJ 679 [HC], had held that the power under Section 561-A J&K Cr.P.C. has to be exercise sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. This inherent power cannot be exercised on mere drop of hat or merely to correct any illegality committed by the subordinate court. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner herein instead of filing appeal under Section 29 of the Jammu & Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 before the Sessions court, has rushed to this Court invoking its inherent power, which otherwise has to be used cautiously and sparingly. The petitioner had the alternate efficacious remedy available under the statute, and to invoke the inherent power of this Court is an abuse of process. 11. Having regard to what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no scope for interference into the impugned order by exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The petitioner herein shall, however, be free to avail appropriate remedy and may, if cause survives thereafter, approach this Court again. Copy of this order shall be sent down to the concerned learned Magistrate, for information. 12. Petition, is, accordingly dismissed.