Delhi High Court
Rahul Raj vs Ms Deepti Aggarwal on 12 October, 2018
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:12.10.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4670/2018
RAHUL RAJ ..... Petitioner
versus
MS DEEPTI AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar and
Ms. Priyanka Verma, Advs.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Chandna, Mr. Chanpreet Singh, Ms.
Ikat Anand, Mr. Harinder K. Talwar, Advs.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
12.10.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. 32053/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 4670/2018
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 21.08.2018 whereby a pre-
condition of deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs has been imposed for issuance of
notice in the appeal filed by the petitioner impugning order of the
Family Court under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the DV Act),
fixing interim maintenance.
2. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in Sabina Sahdev & Ors. Vs. Vidur Sahdev dated
09.07.2018, 251 (2018) DLT 245 to contend that there can be no pre-
condition of deposit for issuance of notice and consideration of
appeal.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the
respondent. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for
hearing today.
4. The Division Bench of this Court in Sabina Sahdev (supra) has
held as under:
"******Accordingly, we hold that a revision under
Section 399 read with Section 401 Cr. P.C. and an
appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, against the order
granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and
under Section 23 of the DV Act respectively, would be
maintainable, and would be entertained and heard
without any pre-condition of deposit of the arrears of
maintenance as ordered by the Ld. MM. We further hold
that the pendency of such a Revision or Appeal-as the
case may be, shall not operate as a stay of the operation
of the order granting interim maintenance.*****"
5. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench, the present
petition is disposed of holding that the direction to the petitioner to
pre-deposit the arrears or part thereof is unsustainable. The direction
is accordingly quashed. The Appellate Court shall issue notice without
requiring the petitioner to pre deposit any amount.
6. However, it is clarified that issuance of notice shall not operate
as an interim stay of the impugned order of the trial court directing
payment of maintenance.
7. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
already filed an application seeking stay of the impugned order which
is pending consideration before the appellate court.
8. The appellate court would be at liberty to consider the
application for stay in accordance with law without being influenced
by anything stated in this order.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
OCTOBER 12, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'rs'
