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…!
The courts also recognize that the respondent's deliberate default in paying maintenance can lead to the court dismissing or striking off their defence, thereby ensuring enforcement of maintenance obligations ["Naseema vs Abdulla - Kerala"], ["ANITTA ASHOK vs RATHEESH M.A. - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Naseema vs Abdulla - Kerala"]- ["Tirthajani Panda vs Bibhuti Shankar Padhi - Orissa"]- ["Hari B. , S/o. Balakrishnan Nambiyar VS Harsha S. , D/o. P. D. Subash - Kerala"]- ["JOHNSON ITTY vs SHOBHA JOHNSON - Kerala"]- ["Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 971"]- ["Jijo Mathew Alex VS Anu T. Cherian - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 1038"]- ["ANITTA ASHOK vs RATHEESH M.A. - Kerala"]- ["ANITTA ASHOK vs RATHEESH M.A - Kerala"]
In family law disputes, maintenance payments are crucial for supporting dependents like spouses and children during litigation. But what happens when the respondent repeatedly fails to pay court-ordered maintenance? A common question arises: whether a petition to strike off defence is maintainable in a case where respondent defaulted payment of maintenance in family court.
This drastic remedy—striking off the respondent's defence—effectively prevents them from contesting the case on merits, potentially leading to an ex parte decision. While courts recognize this power, it is exercised sparingly as a last resort. This article explores the legal position, drawing from key judgments and statutory provisions, to provide clarity for those navigating family court proceedings.
Disclaimer: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Family courts derive their authority to strike off defence primarily from the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This section empowers courts to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of process or ensure ends of justice. Preetha, D/o. Rajam VS Hareesh Kumar, S/o Rajan Achari - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1252Jijo Mathew Alex VS Anu T. Cherian - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 1038
Courts have affirmed that wilful non-compliance with maintenance orders constitutes contumacious conduct, justifying this measure. For instance, failure to pay maintenance as ordered can constitute contumacious conduct, justifying the striking off of defence. Jijo Mathew Alex VS Anu T. Cherian - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 1038
However, this is not automatic. It requires clear evidence of deliberate and persistent default, especially when the respondent has the capacity to pay. JAYAN S/O. PONNU VS SUJA - 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 490
Several cases illustrate when striking off defence is permissible:
In ANILKUMAR vs SUMATHY - 2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52655, the court confirmed Family Court's jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC: it is well within the jurisdiction of the Family Court to invoke Section 151... to strike off the defence, if there is deliberate non payment of the maintenance ordered by the Court.
Even in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC or Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, courts have applied this power judiciously. For example, in a divorce case, non-payment led to striking off defence, reinforcing compliance obligations across related proceedings. MUKESH JAIN vs KOUSHALYA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 24955
Judges consistently warn against mechanical application:
A Bombay High Court case clarified: 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, particularly to a dependant unemployed wife, and minor children. RAJNESH VS NEHA - 2020 6 Supreme 322
In another instance, the court set aside a strike-off order but directed payment of arrears, giving a final chance: Direct the petitioner to pay... towards arrears of maintenance... On payment... the impugned order will stand set aside. Muraleedharan VS Jincy - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 578
Family courts often handle intertwined proceedings like maintenance under CrPC 125, HMA Section 24, or DV Act. Overlapping jurisdictions require adjustment of maintenance awards to avoid multiplicity. RAJNESH VS NEHA - 2020 6 Supreme 322
Steps Typically Followed:1. Petitioner files IA for striking off defence, citing default evidence.2. Court issues notice; respondent explains (e.g., via affidavit of assets). RAJNESH VS NEHA - 2020 6 Supreme 3223. If wilful default proven, defence struck off; case proceeds ex parte.4. Respondent can seek restoration by clearing arrears. Muraleedharan VS Jincy - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 578
The Supreme Court in Mukesh Jain allowed striking off for non-payment of interim maintenance, but stressed procedural fairness. Lipika Nayak vs Ajitav Nayak - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 5996
In pendente lite maintenance under HMA Section 24, Defence can be struck off for non compliance... only as a last resort and if the default is found to be deliberate and wilful. Shyju. P. K. VS Nadeera - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 844
Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice... to prevent them from falling into destitution. RAJNESH VS NEHA - 2020 6 Supreme 322
A petition to strike off defence for maintenance default in family court is generally maintainable under Section 151 CPC, but only for wilful, contumacious non-payment after giving the respondent a fair opportunity. It serves to enforce compliance and prevent abuse, yet courts exercise it with utmost caution as a last resort.
Key Takeaways:- Prove deliberate default with capacity to pay. Jijo Mathew Alex VS Anu T. Cherian - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 1038- Always provide hearing chance. Preetha, D/o. Rajam VS Hareesh Kumar, S/o Rajan Achari - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1252- Consider alternatives before drastic steps. Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 971- Clear arrears to potentially restore defence. Muraleedharan VS Jincy - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 578
Understanding these nuances can help navigate family disputes effectively. For personalized guidance, consult a family law expert.
References:-Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 971Jijo Mathew Alex VS Anu T. Cherian - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 1038Preetha, D/o. Rajam VS Hareesh Kumar, S/o Rajan Achari - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1252MUKESH JAIN vs KOUSHALYA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 24955Mukesh Jain vs Koushalya - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2476HARI B. Vs HARSHA S. - 2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3820ANILKUMAR vs SUMATHY - 2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52655Lipika Nayak vs Ajitav Nayak - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 5996Shyju. P. K. VS Nadeera - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 844RAJNESH VS NEHA - 2020 6 Supreme 322Muraleedharan VS Jincy - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 578SAKEER HUSSAIN T. P. S/O. ABUBACKER KOYA VS NASEERA D/O. LATE MUHAMMED, CHETTUPURATHU VEEDU - 2016 Supreme(Ker) 533
#FamilyLawIndia, #MaintenanceDefault, #StrikeOffDefence
Going by the facts of this case, the respondent concedes that he has defaulted payment of the ordered interim maintenance to the petitioner in M.C.No.217/2021, which has been found to be deliberate by the learned Family Court, to thus strike off his pleadings in it. ... Sri.Adithya Varma S. - learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the learned Family Court has refused to strik....
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. ... Nadeera, 2021 (5) KLT 693 has held that the Family Court can strike off the defence on failure to pay interim maintenance ordered by the co....
This is a simple case where the Supreme Court had fixed maintenance for the husband to pay and the husband defaulted in payment of the same. ... 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. ... The result of this discussion is that if the husband defaults in #HL_S....
This is a simple case where the Supreme Court had fixed maintenance for the husband to pay and the husband defaulted in payment of the same. ... 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. ... The result of this discussion is that if the husband defaults in #HL_S....
Sri.Venugopal, the learned counsel has contended on the contrary that the Family Court is empowered to strike off defences of the respondent who has defaulted the payment of maintenance as directed by a Court. He has relied on the dictum of Division Benches of this Court in Mahesh v. ... Therefore, the Family Court ought not to have struck off the defence of the....
Sri.Venugopal, the learned counsel has contended on the contrary that the Family Court is empowered to strike off defences of the respondent who has defaulted the payment of maintenance as directed by a Court. He has relied on the dictum of Division Benches of this Court in Mahesh v. ... Therefore, the Family Court ought not to have struck off the defence of the....
Mukesh Jain (5), the Supreme Court allowed a Family Court to strike off the defence of the respondent, in case of non-payment of maintenance in accordance with the interim order passed. xxx xxx xxx 130. ... payment of maintenance, so as to facilitate speedy disposal of the maintenance petition. ... Does the Family Court have t....
Mukesh Jain ((Criminal Appeal Nos.1129-1130/2019) decided vide judgment dated 24.07.2019), the Supreme Court allowed a Family Court to strike off the defence of the respondent, in case of nonpayment of maintenance in accordance with the interim order passed. ... 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....
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. ... Petitioner did not pay the maintenance, which prompted the respondent to file I.A.No.530/2014 to strike off the de....
Mukesh Jain, (2020) 17 SCC 822 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1915] , the Supreme Court allowed a Family Court to strike off the defence of the respondent, in case 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 ....
Under what circumstances can the Family Court strike off the defence for non compliance of the order to pay pendente lite maintenance? These are the questions that arise for consideration in this matrimonial appeal. Whether an application for maintenance pendente lite u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would lie in a proceeding other than under the said Act?
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. Where this amount is not paid to the applicant, then the very object and purpose of this provision stands defeated. (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. No doubt, remedy of execution of decree o....
Learned counsel contended that when the husband makes default in payment of the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the Family Court has no power to strike off his defence in a totally different proceeding instituted before it by the wife in which she has not sought any relief for payment of maintenance. However, the question for consideration in this case is whether in a proceeding instituted by the wife in which she has not claimed any maintenance or interim maintenance from the husband, the Family Court has power to strike off th....
It was contended that the Family Court had no power to strike off the defence for non payment of interim maintenance. Relying on the decisions in Vinod v. Chhaya (2003 DMC 580) and Gurvinder Singh v. Murti (1991 CRI.L.J.2353), the learned Single Judge held that the Family Court, in exercise of its power under 125 Cr.P.C., had no power to strike off the defence. In Vinod's case (supra) the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court held that Family Court cannot strike out defence of husband for failure to pay interim maintenance. That was the case wherein the Family Court, while adju....
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
