Supreme Court has adversely commented on the manner of stay order passed by a High Court while dealing with the maintenance proceedings between the wife and the husband.
A bench of Justice Gupta and Jusitce Bose has passed the order in the case titled as Pratima Devi vs Anand Prakash on 16.09.2019.
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 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
The Principal Judge by order dated 03.10.2017 passed an order granting maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- to the appellants, (Rs. 10,000/- to the wife and Rs. 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.”
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it observed "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".
Read the Order here:
Picture Source :
