Case Note & Summary
The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife married on 3.5.1983. Marital discord led to multiple proceedings: the wife filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Petition No.A-1796 of 1997), the husband filed for divorce on cruelty grounds (Petition No.A-1803/1998), and criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC were pending. On 31.8.2004, the parties filed consent terms agreeing to reside together and that the husband would pay Rs.8 lakhs if the wife had to leave. However, the husband filed Petition No.1815 of 2006 for compliance of consent terms, and the wife filed Application No.A-1365 of 2006 for interim maintenance. On 14.10.2008, the Family Court ordered the husband to pay Rs.3000 per month as maintenance. The husband withdrew his petition on 29.8.2009, claiming inability to pay. The wife then filed Petition No.C-20 of 2010 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. In that petition, the wife applied to strike off the husband's defence for non-compliance of the maintenance order. The Family Court allowed the application, holding that the husband had not paid any maintenance and arrears exceeded Rs.1 lakh, and struck off his defence under Order 39 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. The husband challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Family Court's order was justified as the husband had failed to comply with the maintenance order, and the consent terms did not override the maintenance order.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance - Striking Off Defence - Order 39 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC - Section 18 Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 - The Family Court struck off the husband's defence for non-payment of interim maintenance of Rs.3000 per month, resulting in arrears of over Rs.1 lakh. The husband argued that the wife had not complied with consent terms. The High Court held that the order of maintenance was passed in a separate proceeding and non-compliance justified striking off defence. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court was justified in striking off the defence of the husband for non-compliance of the order of interim maintenance.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Family Court's order striking off the husband's defence.
Law Points
- Striking off defence for non-compliance of maintenance order
- Order 39 Rule 11 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Section 18 Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act
- 1956
