The court established that non-payment of maintenance can lead to the striking off of a husband's defense in divorce proceedings, reinforcing the importance of compliance with maintenance orders.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the learned VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.P.No.3852 of 2015.

2. O.P.No.3852 of 2015 was originally presented by the civil revision petitioner/husband before the Family Court at Jodhpur as C.O.C.(O.P).No.268 of 2006. He invoked Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said proceeding ended in an exparte decree of divorce on 29.11.2008. Subsequently, by virtue of the orders passed by the Supreme Court, C.O.C.(O.P).No.268 of 2006 and the petition filed to set aside the ex parte decree stood transferred to the file of the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai.

3. On transfer, the petition filed to set aside the ex parte decree was re-numbered as I.A.No.1987 of 2016. This application was allowed by the learned VI Additional Principal Judge, Chennai on 18.05.2022. Against that order, the husband preferred a revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.2773 of 2022. Finding that the reasons given by the wife make out a case for setting aside the ex parte decree, I confirmed the order of the learned Trial Judge in and by way of an order, dated 24.04.2024. At that stage, I noticed that the parties have been litigating from the year 2006 and are yet to see the end of the litigation, I directed the cross-examination of P.W.1 to commence on 03.05.2024 and to be completed by 31.07.2024.

Thereafter, the cross-examination of the husband was to commence from 05.08.2024 and to be completed by 30.11.2024. I fixed the time limit, by the said order, taking into consideration that the status of the parties was still in limbo for over a decade.

4. Apart from this proceeding, the wife had also initiated a proceeding for maintenance invoking Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said proceeding, the Supreme Court had directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. In default, to strike out the defence of the husband. It is not in dispute that the husband defaulted in payment of the maintenance and therefore, his defence in M.C.No.413 of 2007 stood struck off. After the order was passed by this Court on 24.04.2024, the parties seem to have gone before the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai and commenced the trial.

5. Mrs.S.P.Arthi, who represents the husband, represents that the cross-examination of the wife in the petition filed by her for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.No.348 of 2011 has been completed. She would plead that when the cross-examination of the wife was half-way through in O.P.No.3852 of 2015, the wife took out an application in I.A.No.5 of 2024. The plea of the wife in I.A.No.5 of 2024 is that the husband had stopped paying maintenance as directed under Section 125 of CrPC proceedings and therefore, is not entitled to continue further in both the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings as well as in the divorce proceedings initiated by him.

6.After receipt of a counter from the civil revision petitioner/husband, the learned Judge proceeded to pass an order on 06.07.2024 directing the husband to deposit a balance of Rs.4,40,000/- into Court on or before June, 2024. In default, she ordered the pleadings and the defence of the petitioner/husband in the pending Original Petitions to be struck off. The court adjourned the matter to 19.07.2024 for reporting compliance. On 19.07.2024, as the husband did not come up with the amount of Rs.4,40,000/-, the consequential order came to be passed. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2024, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

7. Heard Mrs.S.P.Arthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Seshadri, learned Counsel for the respondent.

8. Mrs.S.P.Arthi would submit that the consequences of non-payment of maintenance has already been felt by the husband since his defence in M.C.No.413 of 2007 has been struck off. She would state that the husband cannot be visited with the same consequences again in the matrimonial proceedings initiate