Courts cannot mould relief at the interlocutory stage by granting unrequested status quo orders.

The petitioners, the husband and sister-in-law of the respondent, were respondents in DVC No.12 of 2021 filed by the respondent-wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”) before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

In Crl.M.P. No.16 of 2021, the Magistrate had granted interim protection under Sections 18 and 19 of the DV Act, including restraint against domestic violence and interference with the respondent’s peaceful residence, but declined the other interim reliefs sought.

An ex parte injunction initially granted on 5 February 2021 was extended only until 7 October 2021.

The respondent challenged the refusal of the other reliefs in Crl.A. No.1038 of 2025 before the XXII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

Pending the appeal, she filed Crl.M.P. No.2 of 2025 seeking stay of the operative portion of the Magistrate’s order dated 20 August 2025.

Although the Appellate Court found that she was not entitled to the requested stay, it directed both parties to maintain status quo as on 9 October 2025.

Whether an appellate court, while deciding an interlocutory application seeking stay, could grant a status quo order restraining the petitioners from dealing with the subject properties when no such injunction had been sought?

Whether the power to mould relief could be exercised at the interlocutory stage in the circumstances of the case?

The Court considered the interim remedial provisions under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, under which courts may grant protection, residence, monetary, compensation and interim/ex parte reliefs.

It applied the principle that a court’s power to mould relief in order to do substantial justice is ordinarily exercised while finally disposing of the proceedings and cannot be invoked to grant an unclaimed substantive relief at the interlocutory stage.

Relying on Samir Narain Bhojwani v. Aurora Properties and Investments, (2018) 17 SCC 203, the Court held that invoking the doctrine of moulding relief during an interlocutory proceeding is manifestly erroneous.

The Appellate Court had rejected the respondent’s prayer for stay but nevertheless directed the parties to maintain status quo, without assigning adequate reasons.

The High Court held that this direction effectively operated as an injunction against dealing with the properties, although the respondent’s application did not contain a prayer for such an injunction.

The earlier ex parte injunction had ceased to operate after 7 October 2021, and Crl.M.P. No.16 of 2021 had subsequently been finally adjudicated.

Moreover, the Magistrate had already granted protection under Sections 18 and 19 while declining the other interim reliefs.

In these circumstances, the Appellate Court could not use the general power to mould relief to grant a status quo order at the interlocutory stage, particularly when the respondent had neither sought that relief nor established grounds for staying the Magistrate’s order.

It held that the Appellate Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by granting a status quo direction while deciding Crl.M.P. No.2 of 2025 and by invoking the power to mould relief at the interlocutory stage.

The Civil Revision Petition was accordingly allowed, the status quo order dated 9 October 2025 in Crl.M.P. No.2 of 2025 in Crl.A. No.1038 of 2025 was set aside, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

No order as to costs.