The Family Court has jurisdiction to strike off defense for non-payment of maintenance, and maintenance awarded is reasonable for an able-bodied person.

J U D G M E N T

Shaffique, J

This original petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order dated 13/12/2013 in I.A.No.1518/2013 and Ext.P2 order dated 30/07/2014 in I.A.No.540/2014 in O.P.No.166/2013 pending before the Family Court Palakkad. Petitioner herein is the respondent in O.P.No.166/2013 of the Family Court, Palakkad. The original petition was filed by the wife and minor child seeking maintenance.

2. I.A.No.1518/2013 is filed for interim maintenance. By order dated 13/12/2013, Family Court directed payment of Rs.2,500/- per month to the 1 st petitioner and Rs.1,500/- p.m to the 2 nd petitioner from the date of petition till disposal of the original petition.

3. Petitioner did not pay the maintenance, which prompted the respondent to file I.A.No.530/2014 to strike off the defence. Since no Counter affidavit was filed, the petition was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order s.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

5. First question to be considered in this original petition is in regard to the maintenance to be awarded to the wife and minor child. Perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the 1 st petitioner is unemployed and has no source of income. According to her, the respondent is running a furniture shop and has a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioners sought for interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively. The petitioner, who is the respondent before the Court below, opposed the above application. He denied the fact that he is running a furniture shop. According to him, he is unemployed and having no income. He is depending upon his mother for his livelihood. According to him, he was a coolie worker. He sustained injuries and became disabled on account of a motor vehicle accident and now he is working as a Watchman earning a salary of Rs.3,600/- per month.

6. Family Court, after considering the matter, observed that there is no evidence to prove disability, as alleged by the petitioner herein. Being an able bodied person, he can easily pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month to the 1 st petitioner and Rs.1,500/- per month to the 2 nd petitioner. In fact, Ext.P1 order was passed on 13/12/2013 and the original petition is filed only on 23/10/2014. It is rather apparent that the petitioner did not choose to challenge Ext.P1 order until Ext.P2 order was passed.

7. It is trite and as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Jayasree v. Vivekanandan [2012 (2) KLT 249] by placing reliance upon Mangalam v. Velayudan Achari [1991 KHC 396] that it is well within the jurisdiction of the Family Court to invoke Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure though not under Order VI Rule 16 to strike off the defence, if there is deliberate non payment of the maintenance ordered by the Court. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in Ext.P2 order warranting interference. The only aspect to be considered is whether the maintenance awarded to the respondents as per Ext.P1 order is justifiable or not. As already indicated, there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1 order. Further, there is a finding by the Family Court that the petitioner had not proved any disability on account of a motor accident. He, being an able bodied person, is liable to maintain his wife and the maintenance directed to be paid is only at the rate of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.1,500/- which is reasonable maintenance to be paid in the present scenario. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order.

8. While granting interim maintenance, the Family Court will have to consider the nature of requirements of the parties, their status etc. and if discretionary jurisdiction is exercised by the Family Court in this regard, we do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with Ext.P1 order. Under such circumstances, we do not think that any case has been made out by the petitioner for interference. However, as a last chance, one more opportuni