The Delhi High Court has issued an interim order staying the auction sale of an ancestral property on which the High Court’s own officials had obtained a decree for unpaid maintenance under Section 601‑CCC of the Code of Civil Procedure. The property, a family home inherited by the respondent following the death of his father, had been earmarked for auction pursuant to the decree passed in favour of the petitioner who was granted maintenance. The Court, however, unexpectedly stayed the auction process while entertaining the challenge to the underlying legal strategy.
The litigation arose from a maintenance decree granted in favour of the petitioner against the respondent, his brother, and mother, directing the transfer of funds through sale of the ancestral building. The respondent challenged the order arguing that the property could not be auctioned because it was family ancestral property and its forced sale would affect family dignity and heritage. Additionally, the respondent contended that prior to enforcement, alternative arrangements could be considered and sale ought to be ordered only as last resort.
When the matter reached the High Court, a division bench comprising two judges deliberated upon the propriety of executing Section 601‑CCC—which empowers recovery of maintenance by sale of movable or immovable property. The respondent urged the Court to defer sale pending appeal, emphasizing that auction of ancestral property without attempting softer recovery mechanisms would be harsh and inconsistent with constitutional protections for family life and domicile.
The Delhi High Court upon considering the submissions issued a stay order suspending the sale process, thereby preserving the property’s status quo. The bench made clear that the interim order is procedural and does not interfere with the eventual outcome of the parent litigation. It stated that final adjudication must weigh whether direct auction was necessary or whether incremental recovery or alternate arrangements might suffice to meet maintenance obligations without precipitating a drastic sale.
By staying the auction, the Court also acknowledged the emotional and cultural value attached to ancestral property in Indian families—and the potential injustice of forcing its alienation through automatic execution of maintenance decrees. The bench clarified that enforcement under Section 601‑CCC must exercise judicial discretion with sensitivity, particularly when the property in question serves sentimental and familial purposes beyond monetary valuation.
The order provided that the litigation would continue before the lower court to determine whether alternatives to auction were feasible. The High Court directed both parties to attempt amicable negotiation, failing which the executing court may revisit the matter with fresh evidence regarding the respondent’s ability to comply with maintenance demands through other means. The stay will continue until the appeal is finally disposed of or until further orders of the Court.
The decision reflects the Court’s recognition that execution of maintenance decrees cannot be carried out mechanically—especially when it involves ancestral homes deeply intertwined with identity and family structure. It reinforces the principle that judicial discretion in enforcement must be tempered with compassion and awareness of cultural sensitivities, even as legal rights relating to maintenance remain intact.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.