| |
CDJ 2026 BHC 1993
|
| Court : In the High Court of Bombay at Goa |
| Case No : Criminal Writ Petition No. 77 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR |
| Parties : Shweta Lloyd Malekar @ Shweta Malekar Versus Cdr. Lloyd H. Malekar |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Balkrishna Sardessai with A. Araujo, Advocates. For the Respondent: Vaibhav Amonkar, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 12-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 31 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-GOA 1596,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Section 23 of DV Act
2. Catch Words:
stay, execution, interim maintenance, appeal, condonation of delay
3. Summary:
The petitioner challenged a stay order issued by the District Judge on execution proceedings under Section 31 of the DV Act. The interim maintenance order dated 05‑02‑2022 under Section 23 of the DV Act remained unexecuted by the respondent, who delayed filing an appeal and a condonation application, which was dismissed on 06‑11‑2023. The respondent’s restoration application was registered belatedly on 03‑01‑2026, after which the Sessions Judge stayed the execution proceeding on the ground that the petitioner failed to appear. The Court held that the stay was unjustified, as the petitioner’s non‑appearance could have been dealt with ex‑parte and the respondent was deliberately delaying compliance. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, matter is heard finally at admission stage.
2. The petitioner impugns order dated 30.01.2026 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Margao-Goa in Cr.M.A. No.1/2026, by which execution proceeding in Application DVA No.13/2021/D under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as ‘DV Act’) pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco-da-Gama in Cr. M.A. No.93/2023/D has been stayed until further orders.
3. The petitioner instituted DVA No.13/2021/D before JMFC, Vasco Da Gama against respondent. On 05.02.2022, JMFC Vasco Da Gama passed an order granting interim maintenance in terms of Section 23 of DV Act directing respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month in addition to Rs.25,000/- that he was paying to petitioner and his daughter. The respondent belatedly raised challenge to said order in Appeal before Sessions Court. The Appeal was filed alongwith Cr. M. A. No.49/2022 to condone delay.
4. Meanwhile, petitioner filed Cr.M.A. No.93/2023 under Section 31 of DV Act for execution of maintenance order. Since respondent failed to diligently prosecute his application for condonation of delay in Appeal, same came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Then respondent filed Cr.M.A. No.11/2026 seeking its restoration. Pending restoration application, respondent filed application seeking stay of petitioner’s execution proceeding. By impugned order District Judge stayed execution proceeding observing that petitioner failed to appear inspite of service of notice of restoration application.
5. The learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that interim maintenance order has been passed in favour of petitioner on 05.02.2022 under Section 23 of DV Act. Till this date, respondent failed to deposit amount in pursuance to order. Further, he failed to diligently prosecute Appeal against order granting interim maintenance and also created hurdles in its execution. The District Judge stayed proceeding instituted by petitioner under Section 31 of DV Act only on ground that petitioner refused to accept summons and failed to put her appearance.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent submits that interim maintenance order was passed when petitioner was having custody of child. Now child is in custody of respondent. The petitioner’s challenge to maintenance order is pending before Sessions Court. In this backdrop, order granting interim stay to execution proceeding initiated by petitioner under Section 31 of DV Act has been passed.
7. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that by order dated 05.02.2022, respondent was ordered to pay interim maintenance alongwith arrears to petitioner. The respondent challenged said order belatedly in Appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay. On 06.11.2023, application for delay condonation has been dismissed. Although respondent filed application for restoration, it has been belatedly registered on 03.01.2026. Immediately on 30.01.2026, Sessions Judge stayed execution proceeding filed by petitioner in terms of Section 31 of DV Act.
8. Perusal of impugned order suggests that petitioner refused to accept summons and put her appearance. Except this no other reason is employed to stay execution of maintenance order. This Court finds that if Sessions Court had reason to believe that petitioner is deliberately avoiding to cause appearance, he could have proceeded ex-parte against her and decided respondent’s application for restoration. Apparently, respondent has dodged to comply order dated 05.02.2022, although it was never stayed by Sessions Court. The respondent filed his Appeal with delay condonation, but failed to diligently prosecute the same. On 06.11.2023, application for delay condonation was dismissed. Thereafter on 24.02.2024 restoration application was filed which was kept pending registration till 03.01.2026. The aforesaid conduct on part of respondent clearly shows that he is adopting various tactics and creating multiplicity of litigation with intention to defer compliance of interim maintenance order. In this backdrop, order impugned cannot be sustained in law.
9. In result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (B).
10. Rule made absolute in above terms.
|
| |
