IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 AMIT GULRAJANI .....PETITIONER Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ..…RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Arman Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Kunal Dawar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram whereby it has been directed that unless the entire arrears of maintenance are cleared, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate I^st Class, Gurugram shall not be entertained.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by the learned Appellate Court amounts to denial of the petitioner’s statutory right of appeal. It is argued that the right to challenge an order of maintenance is a substantive legal remedy and cannot be rendered illusory by imposing a pre-condition of full payment of arrears. Counsel submits that part payment has already been made by the petitioner and the matter deserves to be heard on merits. It is further contended that the learned Appellate Court could not have restricted the petitioner from addressing arguments unless the entire arrears were deposited. A prayer is made that at least one effective opportunity be granted to argue the appeal and the impugned condition be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that despite the maintenance order dated 10.05.2023, the petitioner has failed to clear the arrears and only partial payment has been made. It is contended that the direction issued by the learned Appellate Court is justified, as maintenance is meant for immediate sustenance of the wife. Non-compliance of the order dated 10.05.2023, has caused financial hardship to the respondent-wife. It is argued that a litigant who does not comply with the order under challenge cannot seek equitable relief from the Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. There is no dispute that the arrears of maintenance have not been cleared by the petitioner. The object of awarding maintenance is to provide financial support to the dependent spouse. At the same time, the right to prefer an appeal or revision against an order is a statutory remedy and ordinarily cannot be curtailed in a manner that defeats the opportunity of hearing.

6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be granted one effective opportunity to address arguments before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court shall thereafter decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the condition imposed in the impugned order.

7. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

8. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(NEERJA K. KALSON)

JUDGE

23.02.2026 pry Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No