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 R