A Delhi Sessions Court has ordered the release of a person who was sent to judicial custody by a Mahila court for non-payment of maintenance to his estranged wife under the Domestic Violence Act.
The Sessions Court observed, 'while passing the orders, courts cannot forget or ignore the purpose of "adjudication". The order fails to meet the test of 'Adjudication' and is not a speaking order. The same deserves to be set aside.
Additional Session Judge Ravinder Bedi at Karkardooma Court observed, "Having gone through the impugned order, I am satisfied that there is no indication on the application of mind by the learned metropolitan magistrate (MM). Though no detailed reasons are required at the interim stage, there must be sufficient indication on the application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts constituting elements while deciding ad-interim relief of maintenance."
The Sessions Court set aside the Mahila court order and remanded back the matter for disposal of the application seeking maintenance. The counsel for the husband submitted to deposit Rs 1 lakh in the Bank Account of the respondent.
The Sessions Court said, "On such deposition in the account of the wife, the appellant be released instantaneously from custody. He shall file an undertaking or an indemnity bond of Rs. 25000 before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate concerned for his regular appearance in trial court proceedings."
The court has directed to decide on the application preferably within a period of one month. Both parties are directed to appear before the trial court on April 7, 2022. The appellant had challenged the order of the Mahila court of 11 March 2022.
Advocate Amit Kumar, counsel for the appellant, had argued that the appellant has been put in general prison instead of civil detention and the mandatory procedural requirements under the provision of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for civil detention were not looked upon by the trial court.
He had also submitted that the impugned order is not passed on the application of the complainant seeking such arrest. It is not clear as to which of the order of the learned trial court was violated by the appellant.
The interim application seeking maintenance on behalf of the complainant is still pending disposal and instead of disposing of the same, the learned Magistrate chose to pass an ad interim order.
On the other hand Advocate Sidhant, Counsel for the respondent, had submitted that the appellant was not making any payment to his client. Two execution petitions are filed for recovery of pending arrears, which are to the tune of approx. Rs 2.5 Lakhs.
He, however, admitted that the application seeking interim relief on behalf of the wife is still pending adjudication before the trial court and only an ad-interim order has been passed.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor