Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Radheypuri vs Jammu on 21 July, 2026
Sr. No. 85
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
MA No. 43/2025
Date of pronouncement: 21.07.2026
Uploaded on: 22.07.2026
Sanjay Arora, Age 54 years
S/O Late Roshan Lal Arora
R/O 64/3, Extn-2, Gali No. 5,
Radheypuri, Delhi-51 .... Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through:- Ms. Snigdha Shekhar, Advocate
V/s
Kailash Arora
W/O Sh. Sanjay Arora
D/O Late Inder Kumar Sethi
R/O H. No. 3511, Mohalla Paharian,
Jammu .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The grievance
projected in the present appeal is that the learned Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Jammu “the trial court” proceeded to pass the
impugned order awarding interim maintenance of Rs.14,000/- per
month without first directing the parties to file their respective
Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities, as mandated by the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant is earning only Rs.12,000/- per month,
being the rental income from shops owned by him, and that the
maintenance awarded is beyond his financial capacity.
2. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that
the appellant’s only source of income is the rental income of
Page 1 of 4
Rs.12,000/- per month from a single commercial property, and that the
maintenance awarded exceeds his financial capacity.
3. It is further argued that the respondent is already receiving Rs.4,000/-
per month as maintenance in proceedings under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, and that, in view of the
directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnish v. Neha,
the Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the maintenance
already awarded and adjusted the amount while granting maintenance
in the present proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
appellant is a man of substantial means, earning approximately
Rs.2,00,000/- per month, is engaged in the business of property
dealing, and is also an income-tax payee. It is contended that, after
considering the pleadings and submissions of both parties, the Trial
Court awarded Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance in the present
proceedings, in addition to the Rs.4,000/- per month already being
received by the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act.
5. The guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnish v.
Neha envisage adjustment of maintenance awarded in different
proceedings so as to avoid duplication, while at the same time
preserving the parties’ right to seek appropriate relief before the
competent forum.
6. The principal grievance of the appellant is that the Trial Court
awarded interim maintenance without examining his actual financial
capacity and without calling for the Affidavits of Assets and
Liabilities.
MA No. 43/2025 Page 2 of 4
7. A perusal of the record reveals that the Trial Court proceeded on the
basis of the respondent’s pleadings alleging that the appellant was
earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month and was working as a property
dealer. Before this Court, however, the appellant claims that he owns
only a single-storey commercial complex, which has been let out on
rent, yielding an income of Rs.12,000/- per month. This stand is
inconsistent with the pleadings filed before the Trial Court, wherein
the appellant merely disputed the respondent’s allegation regarding his
monthly income without disclosing his own source of income or
placing any material regarding his financial status on record. In these
circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order.
8. The order under challenge is purely an interim order passed on the
basis of the pleadings then available before the Trial Court. Such an
order is always open to modification if the appellant is able to
establish, by cogent material, that his actual earning capacity is
substantially lower than what has been alleged by the respondent.
Upon this aspect being pointed out, learned counsel for the appellant
fairly submitted that the issue involves disputed questions of fact
which can appropriately be adjudicated by the Trial Court and sought
liberty to file a proper application for modification of the interim
maintenance order along with the Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities.
Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to such a course.
9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the opinion that
the impugned order does not warrant interference in appellate
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order is maintained. However, liberty is
reserved in favour of the appellant to move an appropriate application
MA No. 43/2025 Page 3 of 4
before the Trial Court seeking modification of the interim
maintenance order by placing on record the requisite Affidavits of
Assets and Liabilities and any other relevant material in support of his
claim. If such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider and
decide the same on its own merits after affording an opportunity of
hearing to both parties.
10. The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 10.08.2026.
It shall be open to the appellant to file the aforesaid application, which
shall be considered independently and in accordance with law,
without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
11. Any amount deposited during the pendency of the present appeal shall
be released in favour of the respondent against proper receipt and shall
be duly adjusted towards the arrears of maintenance, if any.
12. The appeal, along with all connected application(s), is accordingly
disposed of.
(Sanjay Parihar)
Judge
JAMMU
21.07.2026
Asif Tantray
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: No
MA No. 43/2025 Page 4 of 4
