JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the learned Family Court, Thrissur, because it has struck off his pleadings in O.P.No.312/2024, on the ground that he has not discharged the sums directed to be paid by him to the respondent as maintenance.

2. Sri.T.N.Manoj – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the learned Family Court seems to have committed error because, there was no order to pay maintenance against his client at any point of time; and that all which has been decreed is O.P.No.1325/2021 filed by the respondent against him, in which, he has been held liable to return certain gold ornaments and money to her. He prayed that, therefore, Ext.P6 be set aside.

3. Sri.Sabu George – learned counsel for the respondent, conceded that the decree in O.P.No.1325/2021, obtained by his client, does not relate to maintenance, but directs the petitioner to return gold and money to her. He contended that, what is stated in Ext.P6 is only a mistake and that what the Court meant was that the decree in O.P.No.1325/2021 remains undischarged; even though, on an earlier occasion, when the execution proceedings were levied by his client, the pe