A respondent hit with an ex parte maintenance order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act often discovers that the road to an appeal runs through a toll booth: appellate courts frequently condition the hearing of a Section 29 appeal on deposit of arrears or a lump sum. The Uttarakhand High Court's order of 15 September 2026 in Revisionist v. State of Uttarakhand (CRLR 691/2026; 2026:UHC:8218) illustrates both halves of the balance — the deposit condition survived, but was halved to ₹1,00,000, and the underlying monthly maintenance of ₹12,000 was expressly kept alive pending everything.
What happened in the case
An ex parte order under the DV Act directed the revisionist to pay ₹12,000 per month as maintenance to the aggrieved woman under Section 20. His application to recall the ex parte order was rejected. He then appealed under Section 29, and the Sessions Judge, while admitting the appeal, required a deposit of ₹2,00,000. After an initial detour through a Section 482 application, the revisionist challenged the deposit condition in criminal revision before the High Court.
The order
Deposit halved
Justice Alok Mahra reduced the condition from ₹2,00,000 to ₹1,00,000, payable within ten days — preserving the appellate court's protective condition while trimming its weight to what the case could bear.
Maintenance continues
The Court directed in terms that the revisionist "shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance as directed by the competent Court, unless and until the said order is modified or set aside" — the appeal buys scrutiny, not a payment holiday.
Why deposit conditions exist
Monetary relief under Sections 20 and 22 of the DV Act is subsistence money. The Act's architecture — summary procedure, interim orders under Section 23, enforcement through Section 125 CrPC machinery (now Section 144 BNSS) — is designed to put money in the aggrieved person's hands quickly. An appeal under Section 29, if it silently froze that flow, would convert every ex parte order into the first move of a war of attrition. Deposit conditions answer that risk: they keep the appellant serious, secure at least part of the arrears, and signal that the appellate stage is not a sanctuary from the order. At the same time, a deposit pitched too high can itself deny the right of appeal — which is why revisional courts moderate them, as happened here.
The ex parte trap, and how to avoid it
Respondents served with DV Act notices should appear at the first date. Ex parte orders are entirely lawful under the Act's scheme, and undoing them consumes multiples of the effort that appearing would have taken.
Once an ex parte monetary order exists, compute the arrears honestly before choosing the remedy — the deposit conversation at the appellate stage will start from that figure.
Pick one remedy and pursue it properly. The recall-then-482-then-revision path seen in this case is common and costly; a timely Section 29 appeal with a focused challenge to quantum is usually the cleaner route.
For aggrieved women: an appeal against your order does not suspend it. If payments stop during the appeal, execution can and should continue alongside.
The Delhi vantage
Delhi's Mahila Courts and Sessions Courts operate the same provisions daily, and the pattern in this order — condition sustained in principle, moderated in quantum, maintenance kept running — mirrors how Delhi appellate courts approach onerous-condition challenges. For practitioners the case is a useful, current citation for two propositions: deposit conditions in Section 29 appeals are discretionary and reviewable, and no appellate filing suspends a DV maintenance order of its own force.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an appellate court demand a deposit before hearing a DV Act appeal?
Section 29 of the DV Act contains no express deposit requirement, but appellate courts do impose deposit conditions — typically tied to arrears of monetary relief — to prevent appeals from becoming devices to stall payment. Such conditions are discretionary, and as this case shows, a High Court can moderate a deposit that is disproportionate to the order under appeal.
Does filing an appeal suspend the maintenance order?
No. The High Court expressly directed that the revisionist continue paying the monthly maintenance as ordered unless and until a competent court modifies or sets it aside. An appeal or revision does not operate as an automatic stay of monetary relief under the DV Act.
What can a person do against an ex parte DV order?
The options are an application to set aside or recall before the Magistrate where maintainable, an appeal under Section 29 to the Sessions Court within thirty days, and thereafter revisional or inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. Choosing the wrong remedy costs time — in this case the revisionist first pursued a recall application and a Section 482 petition before the revision was decided.
Is the position the same in Delhi?
The statutory framework is identical nationwide. Delhi Sessions Courts regularly require deposit of arrears, or a substantial part, as a condition in Section 29 appeals against monetary orders, and the Delhi High Court exercises a similar moderating jurisdiction where conditions are shown to be onerous.