The obligation to pay maintenance persists despite any application for modification pending before the court.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

Even though there are various allegations, assertions and averments made in this Appeal, when this matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the appellant – Sri.K.R.Prathish, submitted that his client is willing to remit the entire arrears of the ordered maintenance before the learned Family Court; however, adding that his only apprehension is that the said amount may not be entitled to the respondent, since she has secured an employment in June 2023.

2. Smt.Ranjitha G. - learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the above assertion is untrue and that her client has not obtained any employment sufficient to sustain herself, it being a temporary one. She added that the attempt of the appellant is only to circumvent his statutory obligation of paying maintenance to her client. She added that, merely because the appellant may have filed an application – without admitting it – for modification of the order of maintenance, he cannot maintain that he will refuse to make payment thereafter. She pointed out that, this is exactly what the learned Family Court has held; and prayed that, hence, this Appeal be dismissed.

3. There is substantial force in the afore submissions of Smt.Ranjitha G. because, when the appellant suffered an order of maintenance from the learned Family Court, it was for him to have complied with it. However, what he has done is to file an application for modification; and on the strength of it, he stopped paying maintenance to the respondent. The learned Family Court has found that the arrears on the date of the impugned orders, namely 06.11.2025, is Rs.1,13,000/-. It is because the appellant refused to remit the same, in spite of having been earlier given an opportunity, that the learned Court passed the impugned order in in I.A.No.9/2025, striking off the pleadings of the appellant;

and consequently, dismissed GOP No.2646/2022 filed by him. 4. We, therefore, put it to Sri.K.R.Prathish whether his client is, at least now, willing to remit the entire arrears; and he agreed to the same, however, praying that it be ordered not to be released to the respondent until such time as his client’s application for modification of the maintenance order is considered.

5. Smt.Ranjitha did not oppose this Court granting lenitude to the appellant; but prayed that there be ordered no interdiction in her client accepting the arrears of maintenance, if it is ordered to be deposited before the learned Family Court.

6. Taking note of the afore limited consent, we are of the view that this is a case where we will be justified in granting relief to the appellant; however, on condition that he will deposit the entire arrears of maintenance, as ordered against him now, within a time frame.

In such circumstances, we allow this Appeal in the following manner:

a) We direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- before the learned Family Court, Thrissur, being the arrears including that accrued after the date of the impugned order – not later than 15.03.2026.

b) On the afore amount being so remitted before the learned Family Court, 50% of the same shall be released to the respondent and the balance shall be kept in an interest bearing bank account, pending the Court’s final decision in the application stated to have been filed by the appellant seeking modification of the maintenance order. Needless to say, if this amount is found to be ineligible to the respondent in future, provisions shall be made by the learned Family Court to adjust it against any other entitlement to be found.

c) On direction (a) being complied with, the order of the learned Family Court dated 06.11.2025 in I.A.No.9/2025 will be treated to have bee