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 noted that Family Courts should take a fundamentally different approach compared to ordinary civil proceedings.
The Court was hearing a petition challenging a Family Court order that closed the petitioner’s right to file a reply/written statement and subsequently dismissed an application seeking a recall of the said 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. The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte, but the order was later set aside, subject to costs. Subsequently, the Family Court granted the petitioner two weeks to file a reply/written statement but later closed the petitioner’s right to do so. The petitioner then filed an application to set aside this order, which was dismissed through the impugned order.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that she is a single mother solely responsible for the upbringing and care of two children, including a minor son, and is facing financial difficulties due to the legal battle initiated by the respondent. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s daughter has been undergoing medical treatment since July 2024, requiring multiple consultations, diagnostic tests, and continuous medical supervision, but the Family Court failed to consider the medical records proving the same. Additionally, it was contended that the respondent was aware of his daughter’s medical condition, as reflected in a WhatsApp conversation between him and his daughter, which has been placed on record. The counsel emphasized that the delay in filing the written statement was neither deliberate nor willful but resulted from these compelling circumstances. He further stated that the written statement is ready and requested a single opportunity to file it.
Conversely, the respondent’s counsel contended that the photographs shared by the daughter on WhatsApp indicate that she was on a leisure trip with the family and does not appear to be suffering from any serious ailment that would have prevented the petitioner from filing the written statement within the stipulated timeframe. It was further argued that the divorce petition was filed in August 2023, yet no progress has been made due to the petitioner’s deliberate delaying tactics. The counsel asserted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the Family Court, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Reasoning By Court
At the outset, the Court emphasized that Family Courts must adopt a fundamentally different approach from that followed in regular 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.
It further noted that the petitioner’s daughter is experiencing health issues, and WhatsApp conversations indicate that the respondent was aware of this fact.
“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.
The Petition was accordingly allowed.