R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.

Striking off the defence is a drastic action especially in proceedings relating to matrimonial disputes. An order striking off the defence has tremendous impact on the fate of the litigation and the rights of the parties. It renders the party defenceless. The ambit and scope of the power of the court in that regard arise for consideration in this appeal.

2. The appellants are the husband and his father. The respondent is the wife. She filed O.P.No.706 of 2013 in the Family Court, Ottapalam against her husband and his father seeking a decree for return of her gold ornaments and also claiming past maintenance. The appellants filed objections to the claim raised by her. Meanwhile, she filed an application as I.A.No.745 of 2014, claiming interim maintenance for her and two minor children from the husband. As per the order dated 20.3.2015 passed in that application, the Family Court directed the husband to pay interim monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/-per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/-per month to each of the two minor children and also litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-. Alleging that the husband failed to comply with the aforesaid order for payment of maintenance, the wife filed an application as I.A.No.123 of 2016 to strike off the defence of her husband and his father in O.P.No.706 of 2013. As per the order dated 11.2.2016 in that application, the Family Court struck out the defence of the husband and his father in O.P.No.706 of 2013. Thereafter, as per the impugned judgment dated 26.2.2016, the Family Court directed the husband and his father to return 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,50,000/- to the wife or to pay her Rs.16,50,000/-. The husband was also directed to pay a total amount of Rs.4,36,000/-to the wife towards past maintenance. The appellants have challenged this judgment in this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the order of the lower court striking out the defence of the appellants in O.P.No.706 of 2013 is illegal and improper. Learned counsel would contend that the Family Court should have taken note of the fact that the husband was regularly paying the amount of maintenance ordered to be paid by him to the wife in other proceedings filed by her and that the Court should have adjusted the amount so paid towards the amount of maintenance ordered to be paid by him in O.P.No.706 of 2013. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellants did not pay any amount in compliance with the order passed by the Family Court in I.A.No.745 of 2014 and therefore, the lower court was perfectly justified in passing an order striking out the defence of the appellants in the main petition.

5. The appellants have not challenged in this appeal the order passed by the lower court granting maintenance to the wife and two minor children. But, they have challenged the order passed by the lower court in I.A.No.123 of 2016 striking off their defence in the main petition.

6. True, the appellants did not challenge the order passed by the lower court in the application I.A.No.123 of 2016 to strike out their defence as and when that order was passed by the court. But, the fact that they did not challenge the aforesaid order then will not preclude or prevent them from challenging it in the appeal filed against the final order or judgment passed by the court in the main petition. If the rule is that at every stage of the litigation, a decision not appealed shall be held to be finally decided, precluding the party from challenging it in the appeal filed against the final order or judgment, it will become necessary for a litigant against whom an interlocutory order is passed, to approach the higher court for redress of his grievances, every time when such order is passed against him. Very often, though the interlocutory order is passed against a party, th