Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 843 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 January, 2023
C.M.A.No.2390 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.No.2390 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.19402 of 2022
N.Arivazhagan ...Appellant
Vs.
S.Poorni ...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family
Court Act, against the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2021 in H.M.O.P.No.1392
of 2017 on the file of the Additional Principal Family Court Judge at
Coimbatore dated 29.03.2022 and consequently allow the petitioner to
participate in the trial.
For Appellant : Ms.R.Pushpalatha for
Mr.C.Deivasigamani
For Respondent : Mr.K.Balasubramaniam
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2390 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The appeal is against the order allowing an application to strike
out the defence for non-payment of maintenance. The appellant, who is the
husband suffered an order for payment of maintenance at Rs.6,000/- per
month in I.A.No.1 of 2019. The same was challenged in C.M.A.No.2844 of
2021 before this Court and the said appeal was dismissed on 07.01.2022.
Upon dismissal of the appeal, the wife filed an application seeking to strike
out the defence on the ground that the order for interim maintenance has not
been complied with.
2.The said application was resisted on the ground that a review
petition has been filed seeking review of the order passed in
C.M.A.No.2844 of 2021. The family Judge rejected the said contention and
ordered striking out the defence. This appeal is directed against the said
order striking out the defence.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the order is a non-speaking order and the remedy
of the respondent wife is to seek execution of the order for maintenance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2390 of 2022
under Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act and not to seek strike out the
defence. The power of the Court to strike out the defence for non-payment
of maintenance is undisputable. There is long line of precedents to support
the view of the Family Court that the husband cannot defend a main
proceeding without paying the maintenance ordered by the Court.
4.The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that 28-A should be resorted to cannot be accepted. That would
amount to giving a premium to the defaulter. We are therefore, convinced
that the Family Court cannot be faulted for striking out the defence for non-
payment of maintenance. We do not see any merit in the appeal. This Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (S.S.K.,J.)
20.01.2023
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index:No
Speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2390 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
KKN
To:-
The Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.
C.M.A.No.2390 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.19402 of 2022
20.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!