HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No. 29/2025 in CM(M) No. 21/2025 CM No. 992/2025 Cav No. 307/2025 Satbir Kour, Age-53 years W/O S. Amarjeet Singh Raina D/O S. Jaswant Singh R/O H. No. 188 Sector-1 Channi Himmat, Jammu. …..Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Parveen Kapahi, Advocate. Vs S. Amarjeet Singh Raina S/O S. Beant Singh R/O House No. 250, Sector-7 Channi Himmat, Jammu. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Advocate with Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER 24.02.2025 Cav No. 307/2025 With the appearance of learned counsel for the cavetor, the Caveat stands discharged. LPA No. 29/2025 in CM(M) No. 21/2025 01. Through the medium of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 20.01.2025 passed 2 LPA No. 29/2025 by a Vacation Bench in CM(M) No. 21/2025 whereby subject to objections, the petitioner-respondent herein was permitted to stay in his own accommodation at the Ground Floor of House No. 188, Sector-1, Channi Himmat, Jammu, subject to an undertaking, to be submitted before the learned Registrar Judicial of this Court to the extent that he would not interfere in the possession of the respondent- appellant herein at the 1st floor of the same house and that the action of the parties in this regard would be monitored through CCTV, which shall be installed by the petitioner- respondent herein before shifting at the ground floor of the said house. The Vacation Bench also directed the respondent-appellant herein not to create any hurdle for the petitioner-respondent herein in the installation of the CCTV prior to his shifting to the ground floor accommodation and that the petitioner-respondent herein shall also clear all the dues payable to the respondent-appellant herein in terms of the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 including the arrears, if any, due and payable to the respondent-appellant herein. 02. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent had invoked the jurisdiction vested in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India with regard to supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to an order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions 3 LPA No. 29/2025 Judge, Jammu (“appellate court”) in an appeal titled “Amarjeet Singh Raina Vs. Satbir Kaur” and submits further that the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the appellate court had been passed in an appeal filed by the respondent herein against the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the learned Railway Magistrate, Jammu in a Domestic Violence Act petition and that the appellate court, while dismissing the appeal, made it clear that the order of maintenance was reasonable but on lesser side and as such, the order impugned before it was modified directing the payment of the maintenance to the appellant herein to the extent of 30% of the pension received by the respondent herein till disposal of the main case. 03. 03. The grievance of the appellant is that since the order impugned before the learned Single Judge was with regard to the grant of maintenance only and there was no question of passing of the order of shared accommodation and the writ court has, without hearing the appellant and seeking objections from her, though she was on caveat, has passed the impugned order granting the accommodation as well, which was not permissible in the given facts and circumstances of the case and pray that the order impugned be stayed till the matter is finally heard. 4 LPA No. 29/2025 04. Learned counsel for the respondent, who is already on caveat, however, has opposed the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the writ court was within its jurisdiction while exercising the powers under the supervisory jurisdiction to order for providing of accommodation under the scheme of the Domestic Violence Act to an aggrieved party and that the order had been passed in presence of the learned counsel for the appellant herein. 05. She has further argued that the order impugned is subject to objections and the appellant as respondent before the writ court can avail the remedy of filing the reply/objections to the petition and the matter can be decided once the parties file the pleadings and the LPA is not competent to be filed against an ex parte interim order; that even otherwise there is no scope of filing LPA against an order passed by the Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 06. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties placed on file and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is amply clear that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act, providing for maintenance, had been called in question before the appellate court which, while upholding the order 5 LPA No. 29/2025 passed by the learned Magistrate, modified the quantum of maintenance and enhanced the same by providing that the respondent herein shall provide 30% of his pension from the date of passing of the order in the appeal to the appellant herein and there was no question of providing of accommodation before the appellate court. 07. 07. The respondent had challenged the aforesaid order passed by the appellate court invoking supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge, as an interim measure, without waiting for the reply/objections, made an order providing the petitioner-respondent herein shall be provided accommodation on the ground floor of the house and the respondent-appellant herein shall be using 1st floor of the house and both the parties shall not create any hindrance in their respective portions. 08. We are of the opinion that neither the issue of providing accommodation was before the court below nor the same had been raised in the petition as such, such a relief could not have been granted without hearing the parties. 09. Law on the subject is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in case titled “Mrs. Akella Lalitha Vs. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr”, 2022 Live Law (SC) 638, while relying upon judgments reported as AIR 1953 SC 235 and 6 LPA No. 29/2025 AIR 2010 SC 475 held, inter alia, that if relief not found on pleadings should not be granted and further if a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. It is apt to reproduce paras 15 to 18 of the said judgment hereunder: “15. Coming to address the second issue, while this Court is not apathetic to the predicament of the Respondent grandparents, it is a fact that absolutely no relief was ever sought by them for the change of surname of the child to that of first husband/ son of respondents. It is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. 16. In the case of Messrs. Trojan & Co. Ltd. Vs. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, this Court considered the issue as to whether relief not asked for by a party could be granted and that too without having proper pleadings. The Court held as under:- "It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case." 17. In the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari & Anr. Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors held: "Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner." 18. In this case while directing for change of surname of the child, the High Court has traversed beyond pleadings and such directions are liable to be set aside on this ground.” 7 LPA No. 29/2025 10. Viewed thus, we are of the opinion that no fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping this LPA on Board and propose to dispose of this appeal at this motion stage, by providing that the appellant as respondent shall file response to the petition before the next date appointed in the matter and the learned Single Judge is requested to re-consider the matter in the light of the pleadings of the parties and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. Till then, the interim direction with regard to providing of accommodation in para 6 of the impugned order is ordered to be stayed. 11. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected application(s). (M A CHOWDHARY) (TASHI RABSTAN) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE JAMMU 24.02.2025 Naresh/Secy. Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes … Naresh Kumar 2025.02.27 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document