IMPORTANT POINT
The court has inherent power to strike off pleadings for non-compliance with maintenance orders, but this must be applied cautiously and not indiscriminately to all parties in joint pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

We commence being fully apprised that the legal issues qua Order VI, Rule 16, read with Section 151, of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C), apropos of the striking off pleadings of litigants, have been declared affirmatively by a learned bench of this Court in Shafi and Another v. Raihanath [2018 (3) KLT 437].

2. The learned Bench interpretatively has held-to which we fully affirm-that:

“1. 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.

12. The power of the Court under O.6 R.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to strike out the defence can be exercised only in the specific circumstances mentioned therein. Unless any of the circumstances which are referred to in O.6 R.16 of the Code are present, the Court cannot strike off the defence in exercise of the power under that provision. But, outside the provisions contained O.6 R.16 of the Code, the Court has inherent power to strike off defence. A Court is meant to do justice and it is intended to be an effective adjudicator of disputes. Then, it must inevitably be clothed with necessary power to deal with situations which may arise where the Court must have power to strike off defence so that the people will continue to repose faith in the system and resort to lawful means which are provided by the Courts. It is for the purpose of preserving its power and effectiveness that the Courts have recognized inherent power to strike off the defence (See Jayasree v. Vivekanandan, 2012 (2) KHC 199: 2012 (2) KLT 249 2012 (2) KLJ 295: ILR 2012 (2) Ker. 243).

13. There is inherent power in the Court to pass such orders as are necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. S.151 of the Code saves the inherent powers of the Court and, in exercise of that power, the Court can strike off the defence in deserving cases for meeting the ends of justice. If a party to a proceedings before the Court has wilfully disobeyed the orders of the Court, the Court can strike off the defence. Striking off the defence of the spouse, who does not honour the order of the Court, is the instant relief that can be granted to the opposite party. The Court cannot be a mute spectator watching flagrant disobedience of the interim orders passed by it showing its helplessness in instant implementation of such orders. Law is not that powerless. If the husband has wilfully failed to make payment of maintenance and litigation expenses to the wife, his defence can be struck out in exercise of the powers under S.151 of the Code.

14. The considerations which weigh with the Court in an application under 0.6 R.16 of the Code and in a case of exercise of inherent power are completely different. True, in the instant case, the application for striking out the defence was made by the wife under O.6 R.16 of the Code. But it is well settled that the omission to refer to the correct provision of law which is the source of power of the Court, or the mentioning of a wrong provision, will not by itself render an order invalid or illegal. Law is well settled that it is the substance and not the form which is to be looked into by a Court of law while deciding any lis and appropriate relief to a party shall not be withheld on the technical ground that the nomenclature of an application has been made wrongly. Non mentioning or wrong mentioning of provision of law would not be of any relevance, if the Court has the requisite jurisdiction to pass an order (See Nagappa v. Muralidhar, 2008 (2) KHC 810: AIR 2008 SC 2010: 2008 (6) SCALE 642: 2008 (2) Crimes 219 (SC): 2008 (5) SCC 633: 2008 (3) KLT 158: 2008 (2) SCC (Cri) 677: 2008 (2) Guj LH 553: 2008 (6) Mah LJ 515.). Mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of any provision o