The court emphasized the principle of necessary intendment and the inherent power of the court under Section 151 of the CPC to enforce maintenance orders and strike out pleadings for non-compliance.

Every court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers, as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim 'ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (Where anything is conceded, there is conceded also anything, without which the thing itself cannot exist.) (Vide Earl Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law 1959 Edn. P.1797). Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing, unless something not authorised in express terms be also done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment.

2. Should it not be the approach of the Matrimonial Court in the matter of enforcement of the order with regard to interim alimony pendente lite? is the issue raised in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. By the order, dated 26.04.2013, the Family Court in I.A.No.3741 of 2011, ordered the husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month, as interim maintenance, to his wife, from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., from 21.12.2011. As the maintenance was not paid, for non-compliance of the order, dated 26.04.2013, dismissal of O.P.No.42 of 2011 was sought for in I.A.No.2802 of 2013.

2.1. Aggrieved over the adjournment granted, this Civil Revision petition has been filed, seeking direction to the III Additional Family Court, Chennai, to dispose of I.A.No.2802 of 2013 in O.P.No.42 of 2011 within a time frame, to be fixed by this Court.

3. Even though the petition could be disposed of, without notice to the respondent, in order to try the possibility of settling the matter, this Court issued notice to the respondent, in the address given by the respondent himself in the counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.2802 of 2013 in O.P.No.42 of 2011. The notice has been returned as 'No such addressee'. Therefore, the intention of the respondent seems to be to drag on the matter.

4. Admittedly, from December 2011 (21.12.2011) to August 2014, the amount of maintenance due is Rs.3,20,000/-.

4.1. What are the ways and means by which the Family Court can make the husband to pay maintenance to the wife?

4.2. Whether the Court can be a mute spectator merely recording the fact that maintenance amount is not paid or ask the wife to file Execution Petition, so that it will give some more opportunity to the husband to drag on the proceedings or to grant innumerable adjournments, so that the husband is happy in seeing that the wife is made unhappy in not being able to realise the maintenance amount.

5. When the application to non-suit the petitioner has been filed, thereby expressing the imminent need to get the maintenance, the Family Court should have acted in a sensible manner and should have passed the order immediately.

5.1. The silence on the part of the Family Court has made the wife to approach this Court seeking for a direction to dispose of the application.

6. Even though there are no express provisions enabling the Court to strike out pleadings / defences, in case of non-payment of maintenance/non obedience to the orders of the Court, still various Courts have held, as indicated below, that, in order to effectively adjudicate and to administer justice, in a meaningful way, invoking powers under Section 151 of the CPC is imperative and in appropriate cases, Court can strike out pleadings:

(i) FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD v. JAYASREE (Mat. Appeal. No. 672 Of 2011 – dated 09.03.2012 – Kerala High Court):

“...A court is meant to do justice, no doubt, within the confines of law and principles which are settled from time to time. A court is intended to be an effective adjudicator of disputes. If the court is to be an effective adjudicator of disputes it must inevitably be clothed with necessary power to deal with situations which may arise where the court must have power to strike off defence so that the people will continue to repose faith in the system and resort to lawful means which are provided by the courts. It is for