Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Legal Basis for Striking Off Defense Due to Non-Payment of Interim Maintenance - Courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized that non-payment of interim maintenance in accordance with court orders can justify striking off the defense of the respondent, primarily as a measure to ensure compliance and expedite proceedings ["Lipika Nayak vs Ajitav Nayak - Orissa"]. The Supreme Court in Mukesh Jain v. Kaushalya explicitly permitted Family Courts to strike off defenses in cases of non-compliance with interim maintenance orders ["Lipika Nayak vs Ajitav Nayak - Orissa"].
Conditions and Limitations for Striking Off Defense - While courts have the power to strike off defenses for non-payment, this is considered an extreme measure and should be employed only as a last resort, typically after providing an opportunity to pay the arrears. Courts have emphasized that non-payment should be deliberate and wilful to justify such action ["Lipika Nayak vs Ajitav Nayak - Orissa"], ["Jijo Mathew Alex VS Anu T. Cherian - Kerala"], ["Venugopal Krishnamurthy VS M. Tejaswini - Current Civil Cases"].
Legal and Judicial Perspectives - Several high courts and the Supreme Court have upheld the authority of courts to strike off defenses in cases of non-compliance with interim maintenance orders, but with caution to ensure fairness. For instance, the Delhi High Court struck off defenses upon repeated violations of interim orders, even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions ["Venugopal Krishnamurthy VS M. Tejaswini - Current Civil Cases"]. Similarly, courts have noted that despite the lack of specific statutory provisions, the power to strike off defenses is recognized through judicial discretion to uphold the efficacy of interim orders ["Lipika Nayak vs Ajitav Nayak - Orissa"], ["Venugopal Krishnamurthy S/o C.N. Krishnamurthy vs M. Tejaswini W/o Shri S.R. Satyanarayana Raju - Karnataka"].
Guidelines and Judicial Discretion - The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) issued guidelines emphasizing that striking off defense should be a last resort, and courts must ensure the default is wilful and deliberate. The Court also highlighted that enforcement of interim maintenance orders is crucial, and failure to comply can lead to adverse consequences, including striking off defenses ["R. Smitha Subramanyachar VS Manjunath S K - Current Civil Cases"], ["R. Smitha Subramanyachar W/o Sri. Manjunath S. K VS Manjunath S K S/o Sri. S. R. Krishnamurthy - Karnataka"].
Impact on Proceedings - Striking off a defense due to non-payment does not extinguish the remedy under Section 28A of the Family Courts Act for enforcement of maintenance orders. Courts have also stressed giving the defaulting party reasonable opportunities to pay arrears before such drastic steps are taken ["Lipika Nayak vs Ajitav Nayak - Orissa"], ["Jijo Mathew Alex VS Anu T. Cherian - Kerala"], ["Mukesh Jain vs Koushalya - Madras"].
Conclusion - Courts have consistently held that non-payment of interim maintenance, especially when deliberate and wilful, can justify striking off the defense to ensure compliance and facilitate the speedy disposal of cases. However, such action must be taken cautiously, respecting principles of natural justice, and typically after providing opportunities for the defaulting party to comply ["Lipika Nayak vs Ajitav Nayak - Orissa"], ["Jijo Mathew Alex VS Anu T. Cherian - Kerala"], ["Venugopal Krishnamurthy VS M. Tejaswini - Current Civil Cases"].
References:
In family law disputes, maintenance is a critical right designed to support dependent spouses and children during litigation. However, what happens when one party fails to pay interim maintenance? A common question arises: Case law regarding dismissal of petitions for non-payment of interim maintenance or striking out defenses. This issue frequently surfaces in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the Hindu Marriage Act, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Non-payment can strain proceedings, but courts tread carefully to uphold natural justice. This blog examines the prevailing legal position, drawing from Supreme Court and High Court rulings. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The core principle is clear: courts generally do not have the authority to dismiss petitions or strike out defenses solely for non-payment of interim maintenance, unless specific procedural requirements are met. Drastic measures like dismissal or striking off defenses are last resorts, applicable only after giving the defaulting party sufficient opportunity to comply. Courts prioritize proper enforcement procedures over summary actions. Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 971Sangeeta Grover VS Ranjan Grover - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 282
Key points from established case law include:- Courts must provide an opportunity to the defaulting party before such actions. Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 971Sangeeta Grover VS Ranjan Grover - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 282- No summary dismissal or striking off without notices and reasonable time for compliance. Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 971Sangeeta Grover VS Ranjan Grover - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 282- Power is not inherent but exercised only in exceptional circumstances like wilful, contumacious default after due opportunity. Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 971Sangeeta Grover VS Ranjan Grover - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 282- Stayed or unenforced interim orders do not automatically justify dismissal without procedures. Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas VS Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 817Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 971
Non-payment alone does not warrant automatic dismissal. Instead, courts direct enforcement via statutory mechanisms:- Issuing warrants- Contempt proceedings- Execution under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), such as property attachment or civil detention. Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 971
The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) emphasized: striking off defenses should be a last resort, used only when default is wilful and contumacious, and after giving the defaulting party an opportunity to comply. Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 971 This landmark ruling sets the tone, reinforcing procedural safeguards. Vaneet Singla VS Nidhi Gupta - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 538
High Courts echo this. In Gurvinder Singh v. Murti, the court set aside orders striking defenses, stressing proper recovery over drastic steps. GHASIRAM DAS VS SRIMATI ARUNDHATI DAS - 1993 0 Supreme(Ori) 113
Neither Section 125(3) CrPC nor the Family Courts Act expressly empowers striking off defenses for non-payment. Any such power falls under inherent powers (Section 151 CPC) but requires:- Proper notices- Reasons recorded- Opportunity to comply
Without these, actions violate natural justice. For instance, the Bombay High Court in Vinod v. Smt. Chhaya held: the Family Court has no power to strike out the defence for non-payment of interim maintenance. Venkateshwar Dwivedi VS Ruchi Dwivedi - 2017 Supreme(MP) 984
Another ruling clarifies: Even if it is held that the learned Family Court can pass an order... either to dismiss the Hindu Marriage Petition... no opportunity has been given to the appellant husband. The order was quashed. Pravinsinh Himmatsinh Solanki VS Induben Solanki - 2016 Supreme(Guj) 1333
Several judgments reinforce these limits:- In a DV Act case, the court noted: The defense can only be struck off for non-payment of maintenance when the default is shown to be wilful and contumacious. Partial compliance negated striking off. Tirthajani Panda vs Bibhuti Shankar Padhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 5437- Rajnesh v. Neha is cited widely: for non-payment of interim maintenance by a person his defence may be struck off as a measure of last resort only. Vaneet Singla VS Nidhi Gupta - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 538- Rights like cross-examination cannot be curtailed without cause: The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental... its curtailment without just cause is legally impermissible. Vaneet Singla VS Nidhi Gupta - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 538
Exceptions exist but are rare. In some appeals under the Hindu Marriage Act, non-payment led to striking off after prolonged default, but only post-notice. Krishan Kumar VS Monika Grover - 2011 Supreme(P&H) 982Kewal Singh VS Veerpal Kaur - 2010 Supreme(P&H) 2182
Under Muslim Personal Law, petitions cannot be dismissed summarily; restoration and evidence are mandated. Shagufta Kouser VS State - 2017 Supreme(J&K) 909
The Supreme Court in Rajnesh also addressed broader maintenance issues: Striking off defence of respondent is an order which ought to be passed in last resort, if Courts find default to be wilful and contumacious. RAJNESH VS NEHA - 2020 6 Supreme 322
Instead of dismissal, courts favor:1. Execution as a decree under CPC Sections 51, 55, etc.2. Affidavit of Disclosure for assets to assess capacity. RAJNESH VS NEHA - 2020 6 Supreme 3223. Time-bound disposal to avoid delays defeating legislative intent.
Maintenance is awarded from the filing date to prevent destitution, with adjustments across statutes (CrPC, HMA, DV Act). Overlapping claims require disclosure to avoid multiplicity. RAJNESH VS NEHA - 2020 6 Supreme 322
Family Courts should mandate affidavits early for objective interim awards. RAJNESH VS NEHA - 2020 6 Supreme 322
Understanding these nuances protects rights in matrimonial disputes. For tailored advice, consult a family law expert. Stay informed on evolving case law to navigate maintenance claims effectively.
References:- Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 971: Principles on striking defenses as last resort.- Sangeeta Grover VS Ranjan Grover - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 282: No inherent power without procedures.- RAJNESH VS NEHA - 2020 6 Supreme 322: Comprehensive guidelines on maintenance enforcement.- Others integrated as cited.
#FamilyLaw, #MaintenanceRights, #LegalCaseLaw
of non-payment of maintenance in accordance with the interim order passed. ... Some Family Courts have passed orders for striking off the defence of the respondent in case of non-payment of maintenance, so as to facilitate speedy disposal of the maintenance petition. In Kaushalya v. MukeshJain [Kaushalya v. ... 5.2 He further submitted that there is no such provision under law for dismi....
After referring to Kaushalya (supra) and a catena of decisions of the various High Courts, it is observed as follows: "120.Striking off the Defence(i) Some Family Courts have passed orders for striking off the defence of the respondent in case of non-payment ... In the present case, this Court finds the Family Court has failed to provide the revision petitioner an opportunity to pay the entire arrears of interim maintenance before resorting to the e....
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra) has held that in the event of non-payment of interim maintenance by a person his defence may be struck off as a measure of last resort only. 15. ... Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment titled Rajnesh vs Neha, 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 879, while dealing with the concept of non-payment of the interim maintenance by a person, held as under: “Discussion and Direct....
In the case of Rajnesh (supra), the Supreme Court has inter alia held that for non-payment of interim maintenance, the defence of the respondent is liable to be struck off. In the case of Experion Developers Private Limited vs. ... The Petitioner filed an application seeking for payment of interim maintenance allowance from the Opposite Party. ... For all these reasons, I hold that in a proceeding under the DV Act, the defence can ....
(Emphasis supplied) The Court holds that non-payment of interim maintenance by the husband to the wife, by violating the orders passed by the Court, should result in striking off the defence. 14. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Erum Travels v. ... Even though there are no express provisions enabling the Court to strike out pleadings/defences, in case of non-payment of maintenance/non obed....
(Emphasis supplied) The Court holds that non-payment of interim maintenance by the husband to the wife, by violating the orders passed by the Court, should result in striking off the defence. ... 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....
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh’s case has issued guidelines regarding striking off defence of the husband in case the husband fails to comply with the order passed for granting interim maintenance and cost of litigations. ... to move successive applications for enforcement from time to time, we deem it appropriate to frame guidelines on the issue of maintenance, which would cover overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment o....
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh’s case has issued guidelines regarding striking off defence of the husband in case the husband fails to comply with the order passed for granting interim maintenance and cost of litigations. ... to move successive applications for enforcement from time to time, we deem it appropriate to frame guidelines on the issue of maintenance, which would cover overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment o....
of ad-interim maintenance. ... of non-payment of maintenance in accordance with the interim order passed. ... off the defence of the respondent in case of non-payment of in payment of interim maintenance to his legal consequences for its non-payment p style="position:absolute;white-space
husband has not clear the arrears of maintenance, no opportunity has been given to the appellant husband and/or he is not called upon to show cause and/or informed that on non-payment of arrears of interim maintenance, Hindu Marriage Petition shall be dismissed. ... is struck off, an opportunity is required to be given to the husband by giving him reasonable time, so that the husband if desirous to make the payment can do so and on failure to pay/clear the arrears of maintena....
Striking off the Defence (i) Some Family Courts have passed orders for striking off the defence of the respondent in case of non-payment of maintenance, so as to facilitate speedy disposal of the maintenance petition. Section 24 of the Act empowers the matrimonial court to award maintenance pendente lite and also litigation expenses to a needy and indigent spouse so that the proceedings can be conducted without any hardship on his or her part. (i) An application for execution of an Order of Maintenance can be filed under the following provisions: Where this amount is not pa....
In the case of Vinod v. Smt. Chhaya, I (2003) DMC 580 : 2003 (1) Crimes (HC) 458, the Bombay High Court has held that the Family Court has no power to strike out the defence for non-payment of interim maintenance. In that case the interim maintenance had been paid; therefore, the order striking out the defence was set aside.
In case, main petition or interim petition for maintenance deemed to have been dismissed, then there is error of law committed by Court below. The main petition or interim petition cannot be dismissed. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with direction to Court of JMIC Kotranka to restore both the petitions and proceed in accordance with law.
It was also submitted that the appellant has also not paid the costs imposed by this court on the earlier dates. She has prayed for striking off defence of the appellant on account of non-payment of amount of maintenance pendente lite and dismissal of appeal in her favour. In support thereof, reliance was placed on Paramjit Kaur vs Kashmir Singh 1993 (3) R. R. R. 538, Balwinder Kaur vs Kashmir Singh 1993 (3) R. R. R. 539, Rani vs Parkash Singh 1996 (2) P. L. R. 219, and Ramesh vs Rajpati 2003 (3) P. L. R. 761.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that more than six months has elapsed but the appellant has not paid the maintenance pendente as per order dated 17.2.2010. She has prayed for striking off defence of the appellant on account of non-payment of amount of maintenance pendente lite and dismissal of appeal in her favour. In support thereof, reliance was placed on Paramjit Kaur vs Kashmir Singh 1993 (3) R.R.R. 538, Balwinder Kaur vs Kashmir Singh 1993 (3) R. R. R. 539, Rani vs Parkash Singh 1996 (2) P. L. R. 219, and Ramesh vs Rajpati 2003 (3) P. L. R. 761.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
