Before :- Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7203 of 2019). D/d. 16.9.2019.
Pratima Devi & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Anand Prakash - Respondents
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Dr. Ajay Kumar, Ms. Ankita Agarwal, Ms. Akansha Choudhari, Ms. Akansha Rai and Ms. Shweta Yadav, Advocates.
ORDER
Deepak Gupta, J. - Leave granted.
2. Though served, no one appears for the respondent. The appellants, the wife and minor son of the respondent had filed a petition for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The Principal Judge by order dated 03.10.2017 passed an order granting maintenance @ L 20,000/- to the appellants, ( L 10,000/- to the wife and L 10,000/- to the minor son). This order was passed ex-parte. The respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order which application was rejected on 05.09.2018. Aggrieved, the respondent filed criminal revision No. 986 of 2018 before the High Court. Along with revision petition an application for stay was filed. The orders passed in the said petitions read as follows :
"Trial Court record be requisitioned. List on 25th November, 2019. in the meantime, execution proceedings be kept in abeyance."
3. We are constrained to observe that this order shows total non-application of mind on the part of the High court. This was a case where maintenance had been granted to a wife and to a minor son. The High Court without recording any reason whatsoever, has stayed the grant of maintenance both to the wife and to the minor son. This should not be done. A husband/father is duty bound to maintain his wife and child. Unless there are very special reasons, the higher Court should not normally stay such an order. In the present case no reason has been mentioned justifying the grant of the stay order.
4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the payment of maintenance as awarded by the Family Court. We, however, make it clear that the High Court after hearing the parties may pass an appropriate reasoned order. We make it clear that this order will not come in the way of the High Court confirming, modifying or vacating the order of the Family Court.
5. The appeal is, accordingly disposed of.
