The court mandates that judicial orders include detailed reasoning to ensure transparency and support appellate review, as established by the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner-Ms. Rohini Chopra has filed the present petition challenging the order of the District Magistrate (DM) dated 7th November, 2022 and the subsequent corrigendum dated 17th November, 2022.

3. By the impugned order, the Petitioner has been directed to shift to a rented accommodation within 30 days. However, it has been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the detailed order is yet to be passed. She, further, submits that an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner has been filed by her in terms of Section 16 the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

4. A perusal of the order dated 7th November, 2022 passed by the DM shows that the order ends with a line `detailed order will follow'. The said order reads as:

"As directed by the court during last hearing Mr. Atul Chopra has submitted details of six flats ranging from Rs. 30,000 - 38,000 per month in Vasant Kunj area. He has also submitted the details of monthly expenditure on the child (daughter) which is over and above the monthly maintenance which is given to his wife as per the directions of the family court wherein the matter of DV Act is going on.

Overall, he has submitted that he is providing Rs. 55,000 per month for maintenance for his wife and daughter. Details of monthly expenditure has also been submitted by the respondent in which she has submitted that Rs. 72,150 is the monthly expense she usually incurs for the maintenance of herself as well as her daughter. The court feels that this is the decent amount which should be borne by Mr. Atul Chopra which he had agreed also. Hence, he will provide an amount of Rs. 72,150 on monthly basis to his wife Mrs. Rohini Chopra. This amount will also include Rs. 55,000 which Mr. Atul Chopra is already paying to his wife. In addition to this Rs. 30,000 per month for the rented accommodation shall be paid by him directly to the landowner for 11 months in the first go and a receipt of the same duly signed by the landlord shall be provided by him to his wife within one week to avoid confusion. It is once again repeated that overall Mr. Atul Chopra shall pay Rs. 1,02,150/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand One hundred Fifty) monthly to his wife which will include everything i.e the monthly maintenance as per the CRPC 125 and the house rent.

Since the rent for 11 months shall be directly to the landlord, Mr. Atul Chopra shall pay Rs. 72,150 every month before 10th of every month. Searching the new accommodation and shifting may take some time hence it is directed that the respondent should shift to the rented accommodation within 15 days from today i.e 07 November, 2022. This order can be served Dasti to all concerned.

Detailed order will follow."

5. The Supreme Court has repeatedly deprecated the practice of passing short orders without reasons and giving reasons, thereafter, with a detailed order. Recently, the Supreme Court in Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh, AIR 2022 SC 1941 observed the following:

"Despite the strong observations made by this Court as far as back in the year 1984 and thereafter repeatedly reiterated, still the practice of pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment without a reasoned judgment and to pass a reasoned judgment subsequently has been continued. Such a practice of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged"

6. This practice has been repeated in the present case as well.

7. It is clear from the above order that no reasons have been given as to why the payment of maintenance and the shifting to rented accommodation has been directed. Passing of such orders