Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
PRABHAKARAN.S – Appellant
Versus
SUJITHA.P – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's maintenance obligations and non-compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondent's absence and its implications. (Para 6) |
| 3. court's willingness to provide leniency. (Para 7) |
| 4. extension granted for compliance and subsequent actions. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the learned Family Court, Palakkad, since his pleadings in OP No.969/2021 — filed by the respondent against him — has been struck off for the reason that, he did not comply with its earlier direction to pay maintenance to her in a different maintenance case, namely MC No.162/2021.
2. Interestingly, going by the order, the petitioner had not been directed to pay the entire maintenance as earlier ordered against him – presumably because his application to have the said orders be set aside/modified, namely Ext.P7, is still pending; but it had mulcted him with liability to deposit 10% of the same, which is a small sum of Rs.30,000/-, on or before 19.03.2025. The Court also records that, in spite of being given further chances till 04.04.2025, he did not make payment. It is in such circumstances that the impugned order has been issued.
3. It appears to be the case if th
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
