Considerations Of Procedural Discipline To Be Balanced With Overarching Obligation To Ensure Adjudication On Merits: Supreme Court Allows Filing Of WS
The Court reiterated that procedural requirements are not intended to be applied in a manner that eclipses the duty of the court to render effective justice.
The Supreme Court has observed that while procedural discipline is essential for the orderly conduct of legal proceedings, it must be balanced with the overarching obligation to ensure that adjudication proceeds on merits, especially in matrimonial matters.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice NV Anjaria observed, “Discretion rests with the courts to adopt a pragmatic approach in cases where rigid adherence may result in denial of a fair opportunity to parties. Considerations of procedural discipline, therefore, ought to be balanced with the overarching obligation to ensure that adjudication proceeds on merits, particularly in matrimonial matters.”
AOR Radhika Gautam appeared for the Appellant-Wife.
Factual Background
The Appellant-Wife assailed the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the Appellant-Wife was dismissed, and the order of the Civil Judge rejecting the Appellant-Wife’s application for permission to file her written statement was affirmed.
The Husband had instituted a petition seeking a decree of judicial separation under Section 10(1) read with Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, along with a claim for compensation of ₹25 lakhs.
Summons in the said proceedings were issued and were served upon the Appellant-Wife. She entered an appearance through counsel and was granted time by the Trial Court to file her written statement. Since she could not file her written statement within the statutory time frame, she filed an application seeking more time to file her written statement.
The Trial Court rejected the said application, inter alia, on the ground that the application was not supported by an affidavit and did not disclose any reasons explaining the delay in filing the written statement.
Observations of the Court
“In our considered view, the High Court has adopted a strict approach in declining to interfere with the order of the Trial Court, placing its reliance on strict procedural rigours. It is a settled principle that procedural requirements, though essential for orderly conduct of proceedings, are not intended to be applied in a manner that eclipses the duty of the court to render effective justice.”, the Court further observed.
The Court noted that the Appellant-Wife submitted that her inability to file the written statement timely was occasioned by circumstances beyond her control. As per the material placed on record, she is unemployed, has limited formal education, and lacks legal awareness of procedural requirements. At the relevant time, she was residing with her aged parents and was financially dependent upon her elderly father, who earns his livelihood as a daily wage worker. It was also considered by the Court that the delay was merely of 14 days, and the same was neither deliberate nor mala fide and can be attributed to the hardships faced by her.
Conclusion
The Court concluded, “In view of the foregoing discussion, and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by affording the appellant an opportunity to contest the proceedings on merits. The delay in filing the written statement is accordingly condoned.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and permitted the Appellant-Wife to file her written statement.
Cause Title: Shraddha Ashish Deshbhratar v. Ashish Ramchandra Deshbhratar [Civil Appeal No. 15073 of 2025]
Appearances:
Appellant: AOR Radhika Gautam