CAUSE TITLE:
X v Y
DATE OF ORDER:
07-06-2023
JUDGE(S):
JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
SUBJECT
The Delhi High Court has underlined that when assessing whether to issue a stay of an interim maintenance order made under section 125 of the CrPC, a revisional court cannot make a broad directive of paying the entire maintenance sum by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case. "While exercising the revisional examination of a temporary maintenance order moved in legal proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the revisional court for yet another purpose may not impose as a requirement to granting of stay on the implementation of the assailed interim repair order, such general rider of deposit of the full amount of granted maintenance ignoring the overall circumstances of the case," the vacation bench, presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia, stated.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The trial court had refused the husband's plea to stop the indefinite maintenance order, and he had filed a motion to appeal this decision. The ruling of the lower court was substantially influenced by the High Court's instructions in Rajeev Preenja v. Sarika.
- According to the court's decision in the case, the Magistrate should hold off on hearing a husband's appeal of an interim maintenance order in his wife's favour until the "entire amount of the interim maintenance due according to the order of the learned MM up to the time of filing the revision petition is first deposited in the court of the learned ASJ."
- Justice Kathpalia cited a later case in which a single judge ruled that the trial court's order for maintenance payments had to be fully satisfied before the statutory appeal could be heard. That case was Brijesh Kumar Gupta vs. Shikha Gupta.
ANALYSIS OF COURT
- The court stressed that Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code grants the Court of Sessions and the High Court suo motu powers and that these powers come with an "attendant duty" to utilize them when necessary to further the interests of justice.
- However, the court made it plain that it did not decide whether a judgment for interim maintenance was susceptible to a stay pending appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge must assess this subject while taking into account the unique facts and circumstances of this case as well as the established body of law. The matter was returned to the Additional Sessions Judge after the appeal was upheld so that the latter might decide whether the interim maintenance order issued by the magisterial court should have been postponed until the appeal's conclusion.
