S.60(1)(ccc) CPC | Delhi High Court Stays Auction Sale Of Man's Ancestral Property Over Maintenance Dues
The Delhi High Court has stayed a Magistrate Court order directing auction of husband's alleged share in a family property, in the execution petition filed by his wife seeking payment of maintenance.This was after the husband cited violation of Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC, which prescribes that every person has a right to reside and there cannot be an execution against the only dwelling house which...
The Delhi High Court has stayed a Magistrate Court order directing auction of husband's alleged share in a family property, in the execution petition filed by his wife seeking payment of maintenance.
This was after the husband cited violation of Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC, which prescribes that every person has a right to reside and there cannot be an execution against the only dwelling house which a person possesses.
Stating that a “substantial point of law as regards to the protection provided under Section 60 (1) (ccc) of the CPC” is raised, the High Court granted stay.
Respondent-wife had obtained favourable maintenance orders on dated 26.04.2017 and 20.08.2020.
Aggrieved by non-payment, she moved the Magistrate Court which led to order for attachment and sale of a part of the ancestral property.
The Petitioners, brothers of the husband, challenged this order, asserting their status as co-owners of the property and emphasizing that it serves as their primary residence.
They cited Section 60(1)(ccc) which protects a judgment-debtor's main residential property from attachment and sale.
It was also contended that the Respondent-wife was well aware of the fact that there was a family settlement and the subject property was not owned and possessed by her husband (respondent no. 2).
The wife's counsel argued that the alleged settlement agreement is a sham and even the Magistrate had adjudicated upon it stating it to be unreliable. Moreover, she submitted that the subject property is an undivided property and husband is in possession of his share thereto, which fact has been admitted by him in his deposition.
The High Court was of the view that if one-fourth share of the property is allowed to be sold without dealing with the contentions raised with regard to the veracity of settlement deed, irreparable loss might be caused to the Petitioners.
Thus, for proper adjudication of the dispute, the Court stayed the auction till the next date of hearing, i.e. August 28.
Appearance: Mr. Gautam Panjwani, Ms. Aashna Singh, Mr. Mayank Rana and Ms. Ishpreet Kaur, Advs. for Petitioners; Ms. Sumitra Choudhary, Mr. M. K. Raghav Raman and Ms. Nitya Sharma, Advs. (Through VC) for R-1.
Case title.: Sh. Raj Kumar And Anr. v. Mrs Poonam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 930
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 4922/2025