HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No. 232/2025 CM No. 5123/2025 Cav No. 1845/2025 Bihari Lal Shastri S/o Late Sh. Prem Nath R/o Ward No. 7, Jourian Road, Opposite Akhnoor SBI Bank, District Jammu …..Appellants Through: Mr. G.S Thakur, Advocate Vs 1. Anita Kumari W/o Late Trilochan Vikas Jamwal D/o Late Sansar Chand 2. Prachi Sharma (Through mother) D/o Late Trilochan Vikas Jamwal Both residents of H. No. 48, New Kaleeth Upper Gumat, Jammu .…. Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 14.08.2025 1. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is treated as an appeal against order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu. 2. Registry is directed to assign the nomenclature to the present appeal. 3. Through the medium of the present appeal, the petitioner has challenged order dated 03.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) whereby in an application under Section 19 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1996 filed by the respondents against the petitioner, interim maintenance in the amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of the petitioner.. 4. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Caveat stand discharged. 5. Heard and considered. Sr. No. 110 2 CM(M) No. 232/2025 6. It appears that the petitioner happens to be the father-in-law of respondent No. 1 and grandfather of respondent No. 2. It also appears that husband of respondent No. 1 who happens to be the son of petitioner has passed away. The respondents filed a petition under Section 19 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act before the learned trial Court seeking maintenance in their favour. Along with the petition, they also filed an application for grant of interim relief in their favour. 7. It was pleaded by the respondents before the learned trial Court that there was a matrimonial dispute between respondent No. 1 and her deceased husband and she had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.PC against her husband in which an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month was awarded as interim maintenance in her favour. It was also pleaded that husband of respondent No. 1 died on 22.05.2024 leaving behind respondent No. 1- the wife and the minor daughter. According to the respondents, respondent No. 1 has no source of income after the death of her husband and that the petitioner herein is a man of means earning pension as well as income from joint family property, therefore, he is obliged to maintain the respondents. 8. The petitioner filed his objections to the petition in which he admitted the relationship between the parties but contended that he had disinherited respondent No. 1 and her husband, who were living separately from him. It was contended that respondent No. 1 is an educated lady and capable of earning as such, she is not entitled to any maintenance. It was also submitted that the petitioner is suffering from many ailments and that he is paying premium of Rs. 10,000/- in respect of LIC policy of respondent No. 2. 9. The learned trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties came to the conclusion that respondents are entitled to claim maintenance from 3 CM(M) No. 232/2025 the petitioner and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month has been awarded as interim maintenance in favour of the respondents herein. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the appellant which is clear from the minutes of proceedings of the trial Court as the same reveal that on 03.07.2025 when the impugned order was passed, no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has further submitted hat even on the previous date of hearing, nobody had appeared on behalf of the appellant. On merits, it has been submitted that the appellant is a pensioner and has no means to maintain the respondents. 11. So far as relationship between the parties is concerned, the same is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that husband of respondent No. 1 who happened to be son of the petitioner has already passed away. There is nothing on record to show that respondent No. 1 is earning any income. The appellant, on the other hand, has admitted that he is earning income from his pension. The contention of the respondents that the appellant also owns joint family property cannot be brushed aside particularly when the same has not been specifically denied by the appellant in his objections before the learned trial Court. 12. At this stage, without going into the issue whether the appellant was heard in the matter before passing the impugned order, one thing is clear that till the main petition is decided by the learned trial Court, some sort of sustenance is required to be given to the respondents so that they are able to meet their daily needs including the litigation expenses. The observation of the learned trial Court that the respondents are entitled to claim maintenance from the appellant, therefore, does not call for any interference. However, if we have a look at the application of the respondents claiming interim maintenance against the 4 CM(M) No. 232/2025 appellant herein, it is revealed that they have claimed only maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from him but the learned trial Court has gone beyond the relief prayed in the application and has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of respondents. Even otherwise, having regard to the fact that the appellant is a pensioner, the quantum of interim maintenance granted by the learned trial Court in favour of the respondents appears to be on a higher side. 13. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is modified to the extent that the appellant shall pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondents instead of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 14. Disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 14.08.2025 Tarun/PS Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? No Tarun Kumar Gupta 2025.08.20 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document