PINCHU CHANDRAN Vs. ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The path of execution is not an easy-going highway; it does not provide short-cuts to the destination, observed this Court in Muraleedharan v. Jincy,[2018(4) KHC 639]. relying on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Anita Karmokar v. Birendra Chandra Karmokar,[AIR 1962 Cal.88].

(2.) Does the Family Court have the power to strike off the pleadings in a proceeding under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(for short, 'Code') on the failure to pay interim maintenance? is the question that emanates for consideration in this revision petition.

(3.) The respondents, the wife and child of the revision petitioner, had filed M.C.No.142/2021 before the Family Court, Mavelikara, against the revision petitioner for an order of maintenance. The miscellaneous petition filed by the respondents' for interim maintenance was allowed by the Family Court, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondents' Rs.10,000.00 per month. Subsequently, on the finding that the revision petitioner had failed to pay the interim maintenance, his defence in the proceeding was struck off, and the maintenance application was allowed by confirming the interim order.