S. No. 5 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 336/2023 Umer Farooq Khanday and Ors. …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate Vs. Shaista Farooq ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Nisar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 12.02.2025 1. Respondent herein has filed a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Court of City Judge/JMIC, Srinagar. The said Court vide order dated 07.03.2023, directed as under:- “There is an unsubstantiated assertion of the respondent no.1 that the petitioner No.1 works in a private school and also gives tuitions. In “Kanupriya Sharma v. State, 2019(2) Crimes 445”, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that “Unless undisputed evidence is produced by husband clearly establishing that wife is gainfully employed relief of interim maintenance cannot be declined. “In the present case, there is no material produced in this case by the respondent no.1 to show the petitioner No.1 is gainfully employed any manner. Further, there is no material before the Court at present to show that this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to try this petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court grants interim maintenance in favour of petitioner No.1 to the tune of Rs.9000/- PM and to the tune of Rs.6000/- PM to the daughter of the petitioner No.1 payable by the respondent No.1. The order to the extent of maintenance shall have effect from the date of the application. Further, the respondent No.1 shall henceforth pay Rs. Five Thousand to the petitioner No.1 on account of rent for her rental accommodation. The respondent No.1,2,3 and 5 shall not commit any domestic violence on the petitioner No.1. Accordingly, the interim application and modification application are disposed of. Be made part of main file”. 2. The aforesaid Order came to be challenged by the petitioners before Appellate Court, in a petition filed under Section 29 of D. V. Act. The Appellate Court dismissed the petition vide order dated 12.07.2023, which reads as under: “11. As is apparent it is mandatory for both the sides to file the Asset and Liability certificate and it is only two opportunities which can be given by the Magistrate Court for filing of Asset and Liability certificate on the instance. 12.As for as the consideration of the documents relied by the appellant herein to rebut the contention of the respondent (Petitioners herein) that he is the owner of two Petrol Service Station and in the dealership of MRF tyre, is a matter of trial which can be adjudicated upon only after the evidence is lead by both the sides and cannot be fully relied upon at the time of passing of interim maintenance. 13. Otherwise also the appellant (respondent therein) is bound to maintain respondents (petitioners therein) being a able bodied person. Husband/father is duty bound to maintain his wife and child unless there are very special reasons. Even the Apex Court in “Pritama Devi V/s Anand Prakash (2019) Law Today Live doc LAR 613 has observed that “We are constrained to observe that this order shows total non-application of mind on the part of the High Court. This was a case where maintenance had been granted to a wife and to a minor son. The High Court without recording any reason whatsoever has stayed the grant of maintenance both to the wife and to the minor son. This should not be done. A husband is duty bound to maintain his wife and child. Unless there are very special reasons, the High Court should not normally stay such an order. In the present case no reason has been mentioned justifying the grant of the stay order”. 14. In view of above, the impugned order dated 07.03.2023, appears to have been passed by trial court after taking into consideration the relevant documents on record and has passed speaking and well reasoned order which do not need any interference by this Court. As such the impugned order is upheld and the present appeal stands accordingly disposed of. Concerned clerk to send copy of order to the concerned court. Registry shall complete the file and consign it to records”. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have made an application under Section 25 (2) of D. V. Act, for modification of order dated 07.03.2023 before the Trial Court, which is still pending before it. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on file. 5. Petitioners challenged Trial Court Order before Appellate Court in a petition filed under Section 29 of D. V. Act, which Court dismissed it by observing that Trial Court after taking into consideration the relevant documents on record, passed a speaking and well reasoned order which did not need any interference by Appellate and as such, the Trial Court order was upheld and the appeal dismissed. 6. Petitioners through the medium of instant petition seek quashing of complaint as well as orders passed by Trial Court, but they have not challenged the order of Appellate Court, which they were required owing to the fact that the orders, under challenge in instant petition, have been upheld by Appellate Court. In such circumstances, this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, 7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 8. However, the prayer of petitioners to the extent of application filed by them before the Trial Court is concerned, the Trial Court shall consider and decide it strictly in accordance with law. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 12.02.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 13.02.2025 12:48