The enforceability of past maintenance obligations is upheld, emphasizing the court's discretion in setting conditions despite prior compromises.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant suffered an ex parte decree in O.P.No.503/2021, on the files of the learned Family Court, Kannur, whereby, he has been directed to pay Rs.2,88,000/- each to his children – namely the respondents herein, as past maintenance for the period from 21-04-2019 to 20-04-2021.

2. The appellant, thereupon, filed I.A.No.36/2025 seeking that the ex parte decree be set aside; accompanying it with I.A.No.1/2023, praying that the delay of 278 days in filing the former be condoned.

3. The learned Family Court considered both applications and allowed them through the order dated 21.08.2025; but imposing a condition on the appellant that he shall pay half the amount determined against him as past maintenance, on or before

01.09.2025.

4. The appellant challenges this order of the learned Family Court, as also the judgment, arguing that no amount of past maintenance could have been imposed against him because, the parties had entered into a compromise earlier, in which, all such claims had been abandoned.

5. Sri.Babu Gireesan – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that, since the respondents had given up their claim for past maintenance against his client, they cannot claim the same through a separate Original Petition as has been done. He reiterated that the impugned order/judgment is, therefore, in error.

6. However, Sri.C.Muralikrishnan – learned counsel for the respondents, argued that, as evident from the order of the learned Family Court, it operates to the benefit of the appellant because the ex parte decree against him in O.P.No.503/2021 has been set aside, though imposing the most lenient condition possible, namely that he shall deposit 50% of the amount determined. He pointed out that the delay caused in filing the applications is 278 days and that this could not have been treated casually by any Court, particularly going by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Guruswamy H. v. A Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs [2025 SCC Online SC 54]. He prayed that, therefore, this Appeal be dismissed; adding that a challenge to the judgment of the learned Family Court is not tenable, when it has been already set aside.

7. We find great force in the afore submissions of Sri.Muralikrishnan because, even though the appellant tries to assail the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court, it is not possible on account of the order issued by it subsequently in I.A.No.36/2025. As said above, the said application sets aside the decree which was issued against the appellant ex parte, but imposing upon him a condition to deposit Rs.1,44,000/- each, being half of the past maintenance earlier determined.

8. The appellant challenges not just the quantum of amount imposed against him as condition, but contests it saying that the entire decree was untenable since the respondents had given up their claim for past maintenance against his client in an earlier proceeding.

9. It is needless to say that the above contentions of the appellant are matters to be decided by the learned Family Court appropriately, when the Original Petition is disposed of; and it would not be prudent for us to enter into its evaluation, even peripherally, at this stage. As matters now stand, the ex parte decree issued against the appellant in O.P.No.503/2021 has been set aside on condition that he shall deposit Rs.1,44,000/- each being half of the amount of past maintenance earlier determined in favour of the respondents.

10. We cannot find the condition imposed to be in any manner unconscionable, usurious or disproportionate, particularly when the delay condoned by the learned Family Court, even after finding that it had not been properly expl