SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
ARUNSHA VAHID – Appellant
Versus
JENNATH NISSA A – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 99 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ, SRI.SANJAY JOHNSON, SHRI.SANJITH JOHNSON, SHRI.ABIN JACOB MATHEW, SHRI.ARUN JOHNY, SMT.DEEBU R.

The court emphasized the necessity of reasonable compliance with maintenance orders before striking off a defense in family law matters.

Headnote:The petitioner challenges the Family Court's order striking off his defense due to non-payment of interim maintenance, citing Neethu v. Trijo Joseph, 2022 (4) KLT 207. The court orders the defense reinstatement upon payment of Rs. 50,000 towards arrears. The outcome is the setting aside of the Family Court order, subject to terms.

Table of Content
1. interim maintenance obligation and duty to comply. (Para 2)
2. court's order for setting aside previous ruling. (Para 4)

K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

O.P (Criminal) No.99 of 2026 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 5th day of February, 2026 JUDGMENT The prayers in this Original Petition (Criminal) are as follows:

“(i) Call for records leading to impugned Exhibit P6 order dated 11/12/2025 in CMP No.293/2025 in MC No. 365/2022 passed by the Hon’ble Family Court, Kollam and to set aside the same.

(ii) Dispense with the requirement for the English translation of the Malayalam documents produced along with this Petition.

(iii) To allow such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner is the respondent in M.C No.365/2022 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam. The Family Court directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month as per order dated 11.09.2024 in Crl.M.P No.430/2023. The petitioner paid Rs.88,000/- towards arrears of maintenance, and thereafter, he failed to pay the balance amount. Due to the failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the amount as directed, the learned Family Court Judge, as per Ext.P6 order, struck off his defence. This order is under challenge in this Original Petition. 3. Relying on Neethu v. Trijo Joseph [2022 (4) KLT 207] , the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the power to strike off defence should only be used as a last resort. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) within one month from this day.

4. Having regard to the submission, I feel that the order striking off the defence of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Therefore, Ext.P6 order shall stand set aside on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.50,000/- towards arrears of maintenance before the Family Court with one month.

The Original Petition (Criminal) is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top