The defense can only be struck off for non-payment of maintenance when the default is shown to be wilful and contumacious, ensuring no party benefits from their own wrongdoing.

JUDGMENT :

SAVITRI RATHO, J.

1. This Revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2022 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 16.09.2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 276 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Rural), Rourkela (in short “JMFC(R)”) rejecting the application of the Petitioner for striking off the defence of the Opposite Party on the ground that he has not complied with the order dated 02.12.2015 of the Court and not paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance allowance to the Petitioner (aggrieved person) within 15 days of every succeeding month.

CASE OF THE AGGRIEVED PERSON

2. Petitioner is the wife of the Opposite Party, and their marriage was solemnized on 23.06.2010 at Shaktinagar, Kalyan Mandap as per the Hindu custom and rites and dowry articles etc. were given at the time of marriage. Soon after the marriage, she was ill-treated by the Opposite Party and his family members, demanding further dowry. Her pregnancy got terminated due to assault by the Opposite Party. Intervention of the family members became fruitless and finally the Petitioner prosecuted her study at Sambalpur University in Sociology, on the proposal of the Opposite Party that he would bear her educational expenses. Believing such commitment, she continued her Post Graduate Course but the Opposite Party only paid Rs 3,000/- although he had made commitment to pay the entire educational expenses. In the meantime, the Opposite Party filed a divorce suit vide CP No. 151 of 2014 in the Family Court, Rourkela on false allegations. The Petitioner also alleged that the Opposite Party is having illicit relationship with another lady.

3. The Petitioner filed CRLMC No. 276 of 2014 in the Court of the learned JMFC(R) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, “PWDV Act”). The Petitioner entered appearance on 12.12.2014, filed his show cause but thereafter was set ex-parte as he did not take any steps. The Petitioner filed an application seeking for payment of interim maintenance allowance from the Opposite Party.

INTERIM MAINTENANCE ORDER

4. On 02.12.2015, the learned JMFC(R), keeping in view the residential situation of the Petitioner and the expenses with regard to her study passed an ex-parte order directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the Petitioner towards interim maintenance. It was also directed that the allowances shall be paid by the Opposite Party, to the aggrieved person (Petitioner) within 15 days of every succeeding month.

5. Thereafter, by ex parte judgment dated 01.10.2016 the learned J.M.F.C(R) disposed of the CRLMC No. 276 of 2014 finally, directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards the educational and other expenses of the Petitioner for a period of 18 months to complete her M. Phil course. The learned JMFC(R) also directed the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner for the mental agony caused to her due to the acts of domestic violence by the Opposite Party, respondent therein.

APPELLATE COURT JUDGMENT

6. The Opposite Party preferred an appeal challenging the judgment dated 01.10.2016 in the Court of the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela vide Criminal Appeal No.12/2017. The learned Appellate Court set-aside the ex-parte judgment dated 01.10.2016 and directed the Opposite Party to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only before th