The Delhi High Court was considering a Petition against an order of the Family Court whereby the Petitioner’s right to file reply/written statement was closed and a subsequent application for the recall of the said order was also dismissed.
The Delhi High Court has emphasized that Family Courts should adopt a fundamentally distinct approach from regular civil proceedings.
The Court was addressing a petition challenging a Family Court’s decision, which denied the petitioner the right to file a reply/written statement and later rejected an application requesting a recall of that order.
The single-bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, “While dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Courts ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings.”
Facts of the Case
The respondent filed a Divorce Petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the petitioner before the Family Court. Although the petitioner was initially proceeded ex-parte, this order was later set aside upon payment of costs. The Family Court then granted the petitioner two weeks to file a reply/written statement but subsequently closed her right to do so. The petitioner later sought to set aside this order, but her application was dismissed through the impugned order.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that she is a single mother solely responsible for raising and caring for two children, including a minor son, and is struggling financially due to the ongoing legal battle initiated by the respondent. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s daughter has been undergoing medical treatment since July 2024, necessitating multiple consultations, diagnostic tests, and continuous medical supervision. However, the Family Court failed to consider the medical records substantiating this claim. Additionally, the counsel contended that the respondent was aware of his daughter’s medical condition, as evidenced by a WhatsApp conversation between him and his daughter, which has been placed on record. Emphasizing that the delay in filing the written statement was neither intentional nor deliberate but arose due to these compelling circumstances, the counsel stated that the written statement is now ready and requested a single opportunity to submit it.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel argued that the photographs shared by the daughter on WhatsApp suggest she was on a leisure trip with the family and does not appear to be suffering from any serious ailment that would have hindered the petitioner from filing the written statement within the given timeframe. It was further contended that, despite the divorce petition being filed in August 2023, no progress has been made due to the petitioner’s deliberate attempts to delay the proceedings. The counsel maintained that the impugned orders passed by the Family Court are neither illegal nor perverse and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
Reasoning By Court
At the outset, the Court stressed that Family Courts must take a fundamentally distinct approach from conventional civil proceedings.
The Court referenced its rulings in Komal Gupta v. Amrendra Kumar Gupta and Dr. Sunil Kumar v. Dr. Archana, where written statements filed after a delay were permitted to be taken on record.
The Court also observed that the petitioner’s daughter is facing health issues, as evidenced by WhatsApp conversations showing the respondent’s awareness of the situation.
“The closure of petitioner’s right to file the written statement would deprive her of an opportunity to defend herself in the divorce petition. Petitioner shall suffer great prejudice in case she is not allowed to file the written statement and bring-forth her defence in the divorce petition,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed.
