Finding fault with the way family courts deal with interim applications, the Madras High Court has directed them not to adjourn matters in which maintenance was ordered and not implemented by the parties.
Justice S.Vimala reminded the family courts that they have means and ways to make the parties obey the orders for maintenance without granting adjournments which will give an opportunity to the husband to drag the proceedings.
Quoting several judgments, the judge in her order said "even though there are no express provisions enabling the court to strike out pleadings/defenses in case of non-payment of maintenance, non-obedience to the orders of the court, still various courts have held in order to effectively adjudicate and to administer the justice in a meaningful way by invoking section 151 of the Civil Procedure code which gives inherent power to the courts below to strike out the defenses."
The matter relates to a Civil Revision Petition filed by a woman to dispose of the interim application filed by her in the family court which adjourned the matter.
Originally, the family court ordered the husband to pay Rs.10,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife on April 26, 2013 from the date of filing of petition by husband seeking divorce i.E from December 21, 2011 which amounts to Rs.3.20 lakh as on August 2014. As the husband did not comply with the order, the wife filed an interim application to dismiss the plea filed by the husband for divorce.
As her plea was adjourned, the wife filed the Civil Revision Petition in which she sought a direction to dispose of her application.
Finding fault with the way the family courts deal with such applications, the judge, in her order, said "the Family Courts Act is a most flexible one, enabling the family court judges to invoke novel and creative ideas so as to dispose of the cases quickly and effectively. Still, it is not being done."
"When the application has been filed by the wife thereby expressing the imminent need to get the maintenance, the family court should have acted in a sensible manner and should have passed the order immediately. The silence on the part of the family court has made the wife to approach this court seeking a direction to dispose of the application."
The Judge then directed the family court to dispose of the application filed by the wife within one week from the dated of receipt of copy of this order and report the compliance.
