The Kerala High Court has held that a 50% maintenance deposit as a condition for condoning delay cannot ordinarily be imposed on an appellant, since it fetters the statutory right of appeal.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has set aside a Sessions Court order that refused to condone delay in a domestic violence appeal because the husband could not deposit half of the maintenance arrears within a month, and has sent the application back for fresh consideration [Anilkumar v. Anitha Kumari and Others].
Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed the criminal revision petition and directed the Additional Sessions Judge to reconsider the condonation application applying the correct principles.
The case
The wife had approached the Judicial Magistrate of First Class II, Mavelikkara, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. By order dated 5 December 2024 in MC No. 29/2022, the Magistrate granted her Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance along with protection and residence orders.
The husband filed an appeal after the limitation period. On 17 December 2025 the Sessions Court allowed the delay application on the condition that he deposit 50% of the maintenance arrears within one month. He could not comply, and his plea for more time and the original condonation application were dismissed on 9 March 2026. He then moved the High Court in revision.
What the Court said
Justice Sebastian separated an application for condonation of delay from an application for stay of execution. On the first, the Court held:
The right of appeal, being a statutory right, cannot ordinarily be fettered by imposing a condition requiring the appellant to pay a portion of the amount awarded under the impugned order as a prerequisite for condonation of delay.
The Court said that where sufficient cause is shown, the delay must be condoned, with or without costs depending on the circumstances. On the second, it observed:
A direction to deposit a particular percentage of the arrears of maintenance may be justified in an appropriate case when the Court is considering an application for stay of execution. Such a consideration stands on an entirely different footing from an application for condonation of delay.
The directions
The Court set aside the order dismissing the condonation application and directed the Additional Sessions Judge to reconsider it afresh, on the principle that sufficient cause alone decides condonation, and pass appropriate orders. The Court has not examined the merits of the appeal or the maintenance award.
Why the order matters
Appellate courts often make a part-deposit the price of condoning delay. This order says that such a condition belongs to the stay stage, where execution of the award is in question, and not to the limitation question, which turns only on sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
For maintenance litigants on both sides, the practical result is that a late appeal is heard on its cause for delay, while the wife’s interest in recovering arrears can still be protected through a deposit direction when a stay is sought.
Case Title: Anilkumar v. Anitha Kumari and Others [Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 830 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Jobin Sebastian, Kerala High Court
Date of Order: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Athul Poulose for the petitioner; Senior Public Prosecutor Navas V.A. for the respondents