The court has the jurisdiction to strike off the defence if necessary orders are not complied with, and the Family Court Act applies provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to its proceedings.

In this appeal judgment and order dated 14-1-93 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Luck-now is under challenge.

2. By judgment and order under ap peal the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was annulled on the ground that the respondent is impotent and not able to consummate the marriage.

3. From reading of the judgment under appeal it is gathered that the mar riage between the parties had taken place on 23-2-90. The wife, the respondent had lived with the appellant for quite some time. The appellant during that period did not share the bed with the respondent and refused to cohabit with her on one or the other pretext. The marriage could not be consummated. The appellant admitted the fact of his impotence before the respon dent and her brother-in-law and her sister. The respondent to this appeal moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for alimony and litigation expenses and the litigation expenses of Rs. 500 are deposited the execution of order dated 19-2-92 passed by the Family Court shall remain stayed. The Honble Court had also directed that the petitioner may be represented through his attorney. Till 2-12-92 neither interim alimony nor litiga tion expenses were paid and therefore, the defence of the appellant was struck off. On 14-1-93 the attorney of the appellant moved an application intimating the Family Court that the alimony and litiga tion expenses had been deposited in the High Court on 13-1-93 and requested for recall of the order dated 2-12-92 striking off the defence of the appellant. The ap plication was rejected on the same day. The respondent then expressed her desire of adducing evidence on affidavits and moved an application to that effect. She was permitted by the Court and she filed her own affidavit and the affidavits of her brother-in-law and her sister. The affidavits were not controverted. The evidence so produced was relied upon by the Family Court and finding was recorded that the appellant was impotent and incapable of sexual inter course at the time of marriage and continues to be so and the marriage has not been consummated. The suit for annulment of marriage was decreed.

4. From the judgment and order under appeal it is evident that the appel lant has been directed by the Family Court at some time to pay interim alimony to the respondent @ Rs. 500 per month and also to pay her Rs. 500 as litigation expenses. The appellant did not abide by that order and filed writ petition No. 2621 of 1992. This Court directed the appellant on 12-11-92 to make the payment and only then the execution of order dated 19- 2-92 will remain stayed. From the statements in the memo of appeal it appears that dates of hearing in the divorce petition were fixed and hearing was adjourned from time to time on the request of attorney of appel lant. On 19-9-92 such request for adjourn ment was refused and it was directed that the hearing shall proceed ex pane. This order was challenged in writ petition No. 2621 of 92. Thereafter 2-12-92 was fixed for the hearing of the case on the ad journed date. The attorney of the appel lant had requested for time to deposit the money. He had also moved for adjournment of the hearing. That prayer was rejected and an order striking off the defence for non- payment of the interim alimony and the litigation expenses was passed and 14-1- 93 was fixed for ex pane hearing. On 14-1-93 application for recall of order dated 2-12-92 was moved but it was dismissed on the ground that the pay ment had not been made to the respondent but had been deposited in the High Court and therefore, it will not be deemed to be a payment made to the respondent.

5. The appellant had not claimed that the deposit had been made within time. He has tried to explain the delay in deposit. The delay was however, explained only in the application for recalling the order dated 2-12-92 by which appellants defence has been struck off. The Family Court did not find the e