MANATTU RAJEEVAN Vs. RESHMA M. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2016 in M.C.No.142 of 2015 of Family Court, Thalassery, by which, court below directed monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondents herein.

(2.) According to the revision petitioner, he appeared before the court below in answer to the notice issued from the Court. Pending enquiry, an interim order of maintenance was passed by the court below directing to pay maintenance to the respondents herein at a specified rate. He committed default and hence, his defence was struck off and posted for evidence. Respondents herein let in evidence and on the basis of the available materials, court below passed an order of maintenance.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, court below, while exercising the jurisdiction under section >125 Cr.P.C , 1973has no authority to strike off the defence. It was contended that, other methods of recovery of money are available and court below was not justified in striking off the defence. To support the argument, Adv.V.A.Mini, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the decision reported in Sakeer Hussain v. Naseera (2016(4) KLT 186) , wherein, this Court had held that, neither expressly nor by necessary implication, Code of Criminal Procedure confer a power identical to that of striking off defence on criminal courts. Further, the magistrate courts are not conferred with an inherent power similar to that of section 151 Cr.P.C , 1973and consequently, courts exercising jurisdiction under section >125 Cr.P.C , 1973cannot strike off the defence. Learned counsel invited my attention to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mahesh v. Roopa (2017(3) KLT 226) , wherein, the Division Bench, while referring to the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Family Court held that the right of Court invoking section 151 Cr.P.C , 1973to strike off the defence is a threat held out to unscrupulous litigants who do not respect the majesty of the court and they will be doing so at their peril.