In a significant relief to two brothers residing in a disputed residential property, the Delhi High Court has stayed the auction proceedings initiated in execution of a maintenance order against their sibling. The matter relates to an ongoing matrimonial dispute where the property ownership and residential rights are at the core of contention.
The case titled "Sh. Raj Kumar and Anr. vs. Mrs. Poonam" (CRL.M.C. 4922/2025), was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul, who passed the interim order on 24 July 2025.
The petitioners, Raj Kumar and his brother, challenged the earlier dismissal of their criminal revision petition by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court. The brothers had objected to the execution orders passed by the Mahila Court, which had allowed one-fourth of the residential property-located at WZ-38C/1, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi-to be auctioned to recover unpaid maintenance dues.
Read also:- Justice Harpreet Singh Brar Allows Bail in GST Fake Firm Case Involving ₹107 Cr Tax Credit
Petitioners’ Argument: Right to Residence under CPC
The petitioners argued that they were co-owners of the property and were residing in it as their only dwelling unit. They cited a family settlement deed dated 18.06.2012, through which their brother (respondent no. 2) had relinquished his share in the property.
Their primary legal reliance was on Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which protects the main residential house of a judgment debtor from attachment and sale. They emphasized that forcing them to vacate or auction the house would cause irreparable harm, especially as they had no alternate residence.
“The law mandates that the only dwelling house of a person cannot be attached or sold,” argued counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners supported their claim by referencing the Delhi High Court's Division Bench judgment in Mohinder Singh v. Bimal Saxena, which clarified that residential houses are protected under the said provision of CPC, even if the judgment debtor acquired ownership after the decree.
Read also:- Kollam Bar Association Election Dispute: Kerala High Court Issues Notice on Plea
Respondent’s Counter: Property is Undivided and Not Solely Owned
Representing respondent Mrs. Poonam (wife of respondent no. 2), counsel strongly opposed the petition. She argued that the family settlement deed is a sham, and the JMFC had already ruled it as unreliable. Furthermore, she contended that the property remains undivided and that her husband, respondent no. 2, still possesses a share, as admitted in court.
She also stressed that the maintenance dues were long pending and that the execution proceedings were a lawful remedy against non-compliance of court orders passed in 2017 and 2020.
“The impugned order is lawful and based on the entire factual matrix, including the so-called settlement,” the respondent’s counsel stated.
Read also:- High Court Dismisses Criminal Revision in Railway Protection Force Case
High Court’s Interim Order: Balance of Convenience in Favour of Petitioners
After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that the matter raised a substantial legal question under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC. Justice Ajay Digpaul acknowledged the possibility of irreparable loss to the petitioners if the auction was allowed without thoroughly addressing their claims.
The Court ordered a stay on the auction proceedings and directed requisition of the Trial Court Record for a deeper examination. The Court emphasized that the maintenance payments ordered earlier remain unaffected by this stay.
“This Court deems it appropriate to adjudicate upon the said contentions, and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioners,” the judge ruled.
The matter is now scheduled for hearing on 28 August 2025.
Case Title: Sh. Raj Kumar and Anr. vs. Mrs. Poonam
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 4922/2025