The failure to comply with maintenance orders can result in striking off pleadings, but courts may allow extensions for compliance to ensure justice.

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 the petitioner will not pay any amount even in spite of the order of maintenance passed against him, solely for the reason that he has moved Ext.P7 application.

4. As said supra, the learned Court has only directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of arrears, which is a sum of Rs.30,000/- only. We cannot understand why the petitioner says he will not even pay this because, the said sum will translate to be a mere Rs.1,000/- per month for the period of maintenance ordered. When the petitioner admits that he is legally liable to pay maintenance – with only the quantum being in dispute – it is strange that he refuses even to pay Rs.1,000/- per month, as now directed to be deposited. 5. Sri.Sarath M.S. - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client is willing to deposit the money but that he requires some time to do so.

6. Even though service on the respondent is complete, she has chosen neither to be present in person, nor to be represented through counsel; and this was the same situation on 10.02.2026 when we considered this matter first. However, going by the directions we propose, no prejudice will be caused to her.

7. Though this Court would have been fully justified in not offering any lenitude to the petitioner, we chose to do so, solely by way of indulgence; and since we are of the view that every matter, as far as possible, should be disposed of with opportunity of proper contest.

8. In such perspective, we allow this Original Petition, to the limited extent of extending the time for making payment of the sum fixed by the Court in it, until 16.02.2026. If the amount is so deposited, then, Ext.P6 to the extent to which the pleadings of the petitioner have been struck off, will stand set aside. The learned Court will, thereupon, dispose of the Original Petition on its merits, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides.

9. Needless to say, if our orders are violated, then the benefit of this judgment will also be lost to the petitioner; and the Court will proceed with the matter based on Ext.P6, which will remain without any modification.

We finally order that if our directions above are complied with by the petitioner, the amount in deposit shall be disbursed to the respondent by the learned Family Court without any avoidable delay.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO. 94 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF M.C. NO. 162/2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT , PALAKKAD Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 774/2025 IN M.C NO.162/2021 DATED 28/04/2025 OF THE THE FAMILY COURT , PALAKKAD Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 775/2025 IN M.C NO.162/2021 DATED 28/04/2025 OF THE THE FAMILY COURT , PALAKKAD Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 1/2025 IN O.P.NO.