Sabina Sahdev v. Vidur Sehdev. , Delhi HC as on 9 July 2018
CRL.M.C 878/2018 & Crl.M.A No. 3240/2018
Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9747 : (2018) 251 DLT 245 (DB) : (2018) 3 HLR 413 : 2019 Cri LJ 218
Thus, we answer the reference by holding that the general direction issued in Rajeev Preenja (supra) in paragraphs 15, 16 and 20 are not sustainable. The said directions could not have been issued by the learned Single Judge as they seek to curtail the statutory remedy of revision available under Section 399 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C, and of appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, against orders granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Section 23 of the DV Act respectively. The direction in question over steps into the legislative field, which was impermissible for the Court to do. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Brijesh Kumar Gupta (supra), that there cannot be an absolute rider that the entire maintenance amount, as granted by the Trial Court, should be deposited prior to the entertainment of the statutory remedy, because it would leave the remedy of statutory revision/appeal illusory. Accordingly, we hold that a revision under Section 399 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C and an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, against the order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C and under Section 23 of the DV Act respectively, would be maintainable, and would be entertained and heard without any pre-condition of deposit of the arrears of maintenance as ordered by the Ld. MM. We further hold that the pendency of such a Revision or Appeal-as the case may be, shall not operate as a stay of the operation of the order granting interim maintenance.