Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Veena Devi vs Deepak Kumar on 29 January, 2025
Sr.No. 29
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM(M) No. 24/2025
CM No. 298/2025
Veena Devi ....Appellant(s)/ Petitioner(s)
Through :- Ms. Saba Atiq, Advocate
V/s
Deepak Kumar ....Respondent(s)
Through :-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
29.01.2025
1. The petitioner through the medium of instant petition which has been
preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has called in question the
order dated 29.11.2024, which is impugned in the present petition, passed by the
Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (for short ‘Appellate
Court’) in Civil Appeal No. 50/2024 filed by the respondent, by virtue of which,
order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff Akhnoor (for
short ‘trial Court’) for monthly interim maintenance to the tune of ₹3000/- has
been stayed.
2. Ms. Saba Atiq, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal
was filed by the respondent nearly 23 months after passing of the order by the
trial Court, which was well beyond the 30 days limitation period prescribed
under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the delay has not been
explained nor any such application for condonation of delay was preferred along
with the appeal and yet the Appellate Court without assigning any reason or
2 CM(M) No. 24/2025
justifiable ground has entertained the appeal and passed the order impugned
which is subject matter of the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a gross violation of
procedural law and the appeal ought to have been dismissed on the very first day
as the same was not filed along with condonation of delay application and yet the
order impugned has been passed by virtue of which the trial Court order has been
stayed and that too without assigning any reason or ground justifying such order.
Even the Appellate Court, while passing the impugned order, according to the
learned counsel, has not conducted a proper assessment of the financial
dependency of the petitioner and also the ability of the respondent to pay the
interim maintenance. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order impugned
lacks detailed reasoning and fails to justify that why the maintenance order
passed by the learned trial Court has been stayed, which order according to the
learned counsel, is without proper application of mind and is liable to be
quashed.
4. Learned counsel with a view to buttress her arguments has placed reliance
on the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled Rajnesh vs Neha, reported in
AIR 2021 SC 569.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.
6. Prima facie a case for indulgence is made out.
7. Issue notice to the respondent in the main as well as in CM, returnable
within four weeks, subject to taking steps for service within one week.
7. List on 04.03.2025.
8. In the meantime, subject to objections from other side and till next date of
hearing before the Bench, the order impugned dated 29.11.2024 passed by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu shall remain stayed and as a
3 CM(M) No. 24/2025
necessary corollary, the order passed by the learned trial Court is revived and the
respondent is directed to pay the maintenance as already directed by the learned
trial Court to the tune of ₹3000/- per month to the petitioner till the same is
modified/vacated by the said Court.
9. Alteration/modification/vacation on motion.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
Jammu:
29.01.2025
VijayVijay Kumar
2025.01.31 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
