The Delhi High Court has stayed a Magistrate Court’s order directing the auction of a husband’s alleged share in a family property, which was passed in response to an execution petition filed by his wife to recover unpaid maintenance.
The stay was granted after the husband contended that the order contravened Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which shields a person’s primary residence from being attached or sold in execution proceedings.
Noting that the matter raised a “substantial question of law” regarding the protection offered under Section 60(1)(ccc), the High Court intervened and paused the proceedings.
The wife had previously obtained favorable maintenance orders on 26.04.2017 and 20.08.2020. Upon the husband’s non-compliance, she approached the Magistrate Court, which ordered the attachment and auction of a portion of the ancestral property.
Challenging this decision, the husband’s brothers—who are co-petitioners—claimed co-ownership of the property and emphasized that it is their principal residence. They invoked Section 60(1)(ccc), arguing that the property is exempt from such execution as it serves as the judgment-debtor’s primary home.
They also maintained that the wife was aware of a family settlement, under which the disputed property neither belonged to nor was possessed by her husband (respondent no. 2).
In reply, the wife’s counsel argued that the settlement was fabricated and highlighted that the Magistrate had already reviewed and rejected it as unreliable. She further asserted that the property remained undivided and that the husband had admitted in his deposition to possessing a share.
The High Court observed that allowing the sale of a one-fourth share in the property without first verifying the authenticity of the settlement deed could cause irreversible damage to the petitioners.
Therefore, to facilitate a proper adjudication of the dispute, the Court stayed the auction proceedings until the next hearing, scheduled for August 28.
