The Court made it clear that failure to clear the substantial arrears would result in his defence being struck off from the wife’s counter-claim and the summary dismissal of his own divorce petition.The conditional order was passed during the hearing of execution and enforcement proceedings filed by the wife, who sought strict legal sanctions against the husband for protracted non-payment.
Arguments On Behalf Of The Wife:
Advocate Mr. Rahul Jagannathan, appearing for the wife, contended that the husband’s persistent refusal to comply with judicial mandates warranted the striking off of his defence and the dismissal of his matrimonial plea. He submitted the following key arguments:
- Willful Contempt & Disobedience: The husband has consistently and willfully neglected the explicit directions of the Family Court, showing a deliberate disregard for the law.
- Affirmation by the Apex Court: The interim maintenance order passed in favor of the wife is final and absolute, having already been tested and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
- Sufficient Means Extant: The non-payment is not a result of financial incapacity. Despite possessing more than sufficient funds and resources to discharge the mounting liability, the husband has intentionally withheld the maintenance amounts.
- Striking Off of Defence & Dismissal of Petition: A defaulting spouse cannot be permitted to enjoy the right to contest matrimonial proceedings while keeping the other spouse financially starved. Therefore, in accordance with settled law, the husband’s divorce petition must be dismissed, and his defense against the wife’s counter-claim must be struck off.
- Legal Precedent Cited: To reinforce his arguments, Mr. Rahul Jagannathan heavily relied upon the judicial precedent set in Ajeesh Kumar Vs. Shylaja—a case notably argued and won by Mr. Jagannathan himself representing the wife.
In that matter, it was conclusively held that courts possess the inherent and statutory power to strike off the defense or dismiss the matrimonial petition of a spouse who willfully refuses to clear interim maintenance arrears, ensuring that judicial processes are not abused.
Court’s Directives:
Taking a grim view of the massive outstanding amount of ₹1,18,05,000/-, the Family Court reiterated that interim maintenance is a welfare measure aimed at preventing vagrancy and ensuring the economically weaker spouse can sustain the legal battle on an equal footing.
The Court ruled that if the entire arrears of maintenance are not cleared within the specified timeline, the legal consequences will follow automatically: the husband’s petition for divorce will stand dismissed, and his right to defend himself in the wife’s counter-claim will be legally struck off.
