General Directions Laid Down For Session And Magisterial Courts Regarding Stay On Interim Maintenance Set Aside

FACTS OF THE CASE 

• The present petition is filed by petitioner husband under Article 227 of Indian Constitution. He is facing legal proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005.
• The petitioner seeks the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court against the impugned order given by learned Additional Session Judge dated 03.05.23.
• The petitioner seeks stay on the order of operation of interim maintenance.

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES 

• The learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the respondent has objected the stay on order of interim maintenance. 
• The counsel has relied on the decision in the case of Rajeev Preenja vs Sarika  (2009) in pursuance to which the Additional Session Judge denied the stay on the operation of impugned order.
• Whereas the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the decision of the above case is no more sustainable in the field and the present case is a sound case to grant the stay.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

• The honourable High Court observed that the general directions or driveline which were issued in the Rajeev Preenja vs Sarika (2009) case for magisterial and sessions court are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
• The impugned order by the Additional Session Judge is set aside by the Court. The court relied on the decision Sabina Sahdev vs Vidur Sahdev (2018) to have a clear interpretation.
• The petition was allowed and the Additional Session Judge was dirested to decide the matter afresh.