Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Jagdish Pabreja – Appellant
Versus
Shalu Pabreja – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed by petitioner assails the orders dated 25.04.2022 and 26.05.2022 ("impugned orders") passed by learned MM, Mahila Court (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ("Executing Court") in Execution No. 124/2019.
2. The Executing Court, vide order dated 25.04.2022, held that the order granting interim maintenance passed on 22.03.2019 is operational from the date of filing the application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("DV Act") which was moved on 24.06.2013. The petitioner herein was further directed on 26.05.2022 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- out of the arrears of Rs.3,18,000/- by 06.06.2022.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of instant petition, as disclosed in the petition, are detailed as under:
3.1. As the relationship between the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife became estranged, a case under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed by the wife in the year 2011, and vide order dated 22.03.2019 on application filed by wife seeking interim maintenance, maintenance was granted to her.
3.
Executing courts must adhere strictly to original decrees unless ambiguity arises; they can interpret, not modify, extant orders regarding maintenance from a specific application date.
The husband's failure to prove cruelty and the wife's entitlement to restitution of conjugal rights influenced the Court's decision in rejecting the petition and upholding the interim maintenance.
Setting aside ex-parte proceedings does not automatically set aside ex-parte interim maintenance; both must be clearly delineated.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of the application or the date of the order, as per the circumstances of the ca....
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with maintenance orders and directed the respondent to pay 20% of the arrears of maintenance within 20 days.
The court emphasized the responsibility of the respondent to pay arrears of maintenance to the petitioner and highlighted the requirement of filing Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities.
Matrimonial proceedings cannot be dismissed for non-compliance with interim maintenance orders; timely enforcement of maintenance is crucial for fair adjudication.
The Court upheld the principle that maintenance pendente lite may be granted based on a comparative assessment of both parties' incomes under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
