Deposit of maintenance arrears cannot ordinarily be imposed as a condition for condoning appeal delay.

Anilkumar challenged a Magistrate’s order in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which directed him to pay his wife maintenance of ₹5,000 per month and granted protection and residence orders.

His appeal was filed out of time.

The Additional Sessions Judge initially condoned the delay subject to Anilkumar depositing 50% of the maintenance amount within one month; when he failed to comply, the delay-condonation petition was dismissed.

Anilkumar said an accident and serious injuries had prevented timely compliance and that he had produced medical records in support.

He challenged the dismissal before the High Court.

Whether a court considering an application to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, may ordinarily make payment of a portion of the amount awarded by the impugned order a condition for condonation.

Whether the dismissal of the delay-condonation petition for failure to satisfy that payment condition should be set aside.

Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the central inquiry is whether sufficient cause has been shown for the delay.

A court may impose reasonable costs when appropriate to address inconvenience or prejudice caused to the opposing party, but such costs should bear a reasonable connection to the delay and resulting prejudice.

Requiring payment of part or all of the amount awarded under the impugned order is ordinarily not a proper condition for condoning delay; such a deposit may instead be considered when deciding an application to stay execution or enforcement of that order.

The Sessions Court’s order showed that the delay was condoned subject to a 50% maintenance deposit, rather than being determined on whether sufficient cause for the delay had been established.

Dismissal for non-compliance therefore rested on a condition that ordinarily falls outside the Section 5 inquiry and could improperly fetter the statutory right of appeal.

The High Court distinguished that inquiry from consideration of a stay application, where a deposit condition may be justified in an appropriate case.

The Court held that a deposit of maintenance arrears cannot ordinarily be imposed as a prerequisite to condoning delay, while leaving open the possibility of imposing reasonable costs where justified by prejudice or inconvenience.