The court established that it had inherent powers under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enforce its orders and prevent abuse of the court's process, even in the absence of specific provisions in the Hindu Marriage Act.

The petitioner in I. A.No.3603 of 1991 in O.P. (H, M. a.) No. 379 of 1987, II Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is the petitioner herein. The counter petitioner in the said proceedings is the respondent in this revision. The revision petitioner filed a petition against the respondent for divorce, under S.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petition was filed as early as ll-11-1987. The divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty. Pendente lite, the petitioner (wife) filed I.A.No.880 of 1989, for directing the counter petitioner (husband) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- per mensem and Rs.500/-towards the litigation expenses, The court below ordered the petition, as prayed for. In C.R.P.No.568 of 1991, this court modified the order, by directing the respondent-counter petitioner (husband) to pay an amount of Rs.200/- per mensem towards maintenance and Rs.500/- towards the litigation expenses. A sum of Rs.6,300/- was due on the date of filing I.A.No.3603 of 1991. The respondent deliberately committed default in payment. It was so done without bona fides. A sum ofRs.1,100/- was paid subsequently, leaving a balance of Rs.5,200/-. The order passed by the court below, as modified by this Court in C.R.P.No.568 of 1991, has not been complied with by the respondent. Stating that the respondent is deliberately flouting the orders passed by the court, the petitioner filed I.ANo.3603 of 1991 praying that the court may strike of the defence, since it is evident that the respondent is wilfully committing default in payment of the amounts ordered by the court, and in consequence, to pass a decree for divorce. The respondent did not file an objection.

2. The court below heard the matter and took the view that under the Hindu Marriage Act, there is no provision for striking off the defence, in case any one of the parties flouts the orders of the court. It was further held that S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure couldn't be called in aid to strike off the defence. It is open to the wife (revision petitioner) to realise the amount by filing execution petition. The court below took the view that the mere fact that the counter petitioner failed to pay the arrears of main tenance and did so even wilfully and without bona fides, cannot be a ground to strike off the defence. It is against the said order passed by the court below in I.A.No. 3603 of 1991 dated 7-11-1991, the petitioner in the court below has come up in revision.

3. I heard counsel.

4. It is agreed before me that as per the order passed in I.A.No.880 of 1989 dated 9-2-1989, as modified by this Court in C.R.P.No.568 of 1991, the respondent-husband was bound to pay Rs.200/- per mensem towards maintenance and Rs.500/- towards the litigation expenses. It is further common ground that a sum of Rs.S, 200/-is outstanding as balance. The amount was not paid in spite of long lapse of time. Literally and in substance, the respondent has flouted the orders of the court and has failed to pay the maintenance and the litigation expenses due to the revision petitioner, with out reasonable cause. In such circumstances, even in the absence of a provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, the court has power to see that the orders passed by it are enforced and, in the event of non-compliance of the orders passed by the court, the pleadings or defence of a party Can be struck off, in exercise of the inherent powers vested in the court.

5. A sum of Rs.S, 200/-outstanding as balance due to the petitioner, should be the maintenance due for a period of years. According to the court below, the revision petitioner can initiate proceedings in execution. As observed by Banerjee, J. in Anita Karmokar and another v. Birendra Chandra Karmokar (AIR 1962 Cal. 88, at page 92, "the path of execution is not an easy going highway and provides no short-cuts to the destination... Difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. To relegate one to that difficult and risky pathway, even f