The Delhi High Court has put a hold on a Magistrate Court’s order that directed the auction of the husband’s purported share in a family property, in response to an execution petition filed by his wife for recovery of maintenance.
The stay was granted after the husband argued that the order violated Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC, which protects a person’s sole residence from being attached or sold in execution proceedings.
Observing that the case raises a “substantial question of law concerning the protection under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC,” the High Court granted a stay on the proceedings.
The respondent-wife had secured favourable maintenance orders dated 26.04.2017 and 20.08.2020.
Following the husband’s failure to comply, she approached the Magistrate Court, which subsequently ordered the attachment and auction of a portion of the ancestral property.
Challenging this order, the petitioners—who are the husband’s brothers—claimed co-ownership of the property and stressed that it is their primary place of residence.
The petitioners relied on Section 60(1)(ccc), which safeguards a judgment-debtor’s primary residential property from being attached or sold.
They further argued that the respondent-wife was fully aware of a family settlement under which the property in question was neither owned nor possessed by her husband (respondent no. 2).
In response, the wife’s counsel contended that the alleged settlement was a sham, and noted that the Magistrate had already examined and dismissed it as untrustworthy. She also asserted that the property is undivided, and the husband is in possession of his share—a fact he admitted during his deposition.
The High Court observed that permitting the sale of one-fourth of the property without first addressing the concerns regarding the authenticity of the settlement deed could result in irreparable harm to the petitioners.
Accordingly, to ensure proper adjudication of the matter, the Court stayed the auction proceedings until the next hearing scheduled for August 28.