R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.

The path of execution is not an easy going highway. It does not provide short-cuts to the destination. Thus observed the Calcutta High Court on the hurdles in execution of the orders awarding maintenance to wives (Anita Karmokar v. Birendra Chandra Karmokar : AIR 1962 Cal 88).

2. This is yet another case in which the order passed by a Family Court striking off the defence of the husband in a proceeding instituted by the wife is under challenge.

3. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The wife filed O.P.No.1402/2012 against the husband and his parents in the Family Court, Palakkad for granting a decree for realisation of an amount of Rs.60,94,753/- which includes the value of the gold ornaments allegedly entrusted to them by her at the time of the marriage and also an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- allegedly given to them from her family.

4. The wife subsequently instituted M.C.No.25/2013 against the husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting maintenance to her and their child. As per the order dated 31.03.2016 in M.C.No.25/2013, the Family Court directed the husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the child from the date 15.01.2013.

5. The wife also filed O.P.No.268/2015 against the husband claiming past maintenance due to her and the child. An ex parte decree was passed against him in that case, awarding Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife and Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the child.

6. On 22.03.2018, the wife filed an application as I.A.No.371/2018 in O.P.No.1402/2012 against the husband and his parents praying that their defence in that case may be struck off for the reason that the husband failed to pay the amount of maintenance ordered to be paid to her and the child in the two other proceedings mentioned above. The husband filed objection to that application. As per the order passed in I.A.No.371/2018, the Family Court found that there was wilful omission by the husband to pay the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife and the child and it amounted to contumacious conduct on his part and that he has forfeited his right to defend the case O.P.No.1402/2012. Therefore, the Family Court directed the husband to pay or deposit the entire arrears of maintenance liable to be paid by him as per the order in M.C.No.25/2013 and the decree passed in O.P.No.215/2015 and to file a statement on or before the date 23.07.2018. The Family Court also ordered that if the husband failed to pay or deposit the arrears within the stipulated period, his plea in defence of the prayer made by the wife in O.P.No.1402/2012 shall stand struck off. The aforesaid order is challenged in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Family Court has no power to strike off the defence of the husband in a proceeding instituted by the wife only for return of gold ornaments and cash on the ground that he failed to pay the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife and the child in some other proceedings. Learned counsel contended that when the husband makes default in payment of the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the Family Court has no power to strike off his defence in a totally different proceeding instituted before it by the wife in which she has not sought any relief for payment of maintenance.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner is guilty of wilful non-payment of the amount of maintenance awarded to his wife and child and the Family Court has power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to ensure that the orders passed by it are obeyed and complied with by a party.

10. In dealing with the