Family Court's Approach Should Be Radically Different From Ordinary Civil Proceedings: Delhi HC Sets Aside Order Closing Wife's Right To File Reply In Divorce Plea
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 observed that Family Courts ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings.
The 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 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."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Saurabh Seth while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Arvind Kr. Gupta.
Facts of the Case
Respondent had filed a Divorce Petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner before the Family Court. Petitioner was proceeded ex-parte and the order was set-aside subject to cost. Later, the Family Court granted two weeks time to the petitioner for filing reply/written statement closed the right of the petitioner to file written statement. Petitioner filed an application for setting aside the order which was set-aside by way of the impugned order.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner is a single mother and has the sole responsibility for the upbringing and care of two children, including a minor son. She is also facing financial constraints due to the legal battle initiated by the respondent. It was further submitted that the daughter of the Petitioner was undergoing medical treatment since July 2024, necessitating multiple consultations/diagnostic tests and continuous medical supervision but the Family Court paid no consideration to the medical record evidencing the same. It was further submitted that the medical condition of the daughter of the petitioner is to the knowledge of the respondent, which is evident from the WhatsApp conversation between the respondent and his daughter, which is annexed to the record. It was further argued that the delay in filing the written statement was neither deliberate nor willful but was occasioned due to the aforesaid compelling circumstances. He further submitted that the written statement is ready and he needs only one opportunity to file the same
On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent submitted that then photographs shared by the daughter to him on WhatsApp show that the daughter was travelling with the family on a pleasure trip and is not suffering from any ailment of such nature that petitioner could not file the written statement within the stipulated period. It was argued that the divorce petition was filed in August 2023 but no progress has been made so far due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner. It was argued that there is no illegality/perversity in the impugned orders passed by the Family Court, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Reasoning By Court
The Court at the outset observed that Family Courts ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings
It referred to its ruling in Komal Gupta Vs. Amrendra Kumar Gupta and Dr. Sunil Kumar Vs. Dr. Archana wherein the written statement filed after delay was allowed to be taken on record.
The Court found that the daughter of the Petitioner is having health issues and the WhatsApp conversations reveal that the said fact is to the knowledge of the Respondent
"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.
Cause Title: Meenu Agrawal vs. Bharat Goel (2025:DHC:1129)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Saurabh Seth, Advocate Neelampreet, Advocate Tejasvi Chaudhari, Advocate Abhiroop Rathore
Respondent- Advocate Arvind Kr. Gupta, Advocate Abhisesumat Gupta
Click here to read/ download Order
