A Family Court's order resulting from a misapprehension of a decree's terms constitutes grounds for reconsideration.

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 petitioner had agreed through a settlement, namely Ext.P1, to pay off the amounts in 12 equal monthly installments, which he has now defaulted. He argued that, when the petitioner has deliberately refused to act as per his own concessions before the learned Family Court, it was fully justified in having issued Ext.P6 and to have struck off his pleadings in O.P.No.312/2024, which has been filed by his client seeking maintenance.

4. We do not propose to enter into the merits of the rival contentions for the singular reason that both sides agree that the decree in O.P.No.1325/2021 is not for maintenance. Ex facie, Ext.P6 proceeds on an assumption by the learned Family Court that the petitioner had been directed to pay maintenance in the decree in O.P.No.1325/2021; and that his failure to do so warrants the extreme step of his pleadings being struck off in O.P.No.312/2024. This is perhaps only a mistake and we cannot blame Courts because of the huge workload they endure.

5. The acme question is, therefore, whether the non- discharge of the decree in O.P.No.1325/2021, or the violation of terms of settlement entered into therein at the stage of execution – as evident from Ext.P1, should warrant action against the petitioner under Order VI Rule 16 of theCode of Civil Procedure(CPC), by striking off his pleadings in the subsequent Original Petition.

6. The afore aspect has not been considered by the learned Family Court since, as said above, it proceeded on the misdirected assumption that the decree in O.P.No.1325/2021 encompasses directions to pay maintenance to the respondent. 7. We are, therefore, of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the learned Family Court, adverting to all relevant aspects.

In summation, we allow this Original Petition and set aside Ext.P6; with a consequent direction to the learned Family Court to reconsider I.A.No.5/2025 in O.P.No.312/2024, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides; thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.