Introduction:

In a significant ruling reaffirming the equitable foundations of matrimonial jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court has held that a husband who himself failed to comply with a Family Court’s direction to pay litigation expenses cannot subsequently seek to strike off his wife’s defence for delay in filing her written statement. The Court emphasized that matrimonial litigation cannot be conducted in a manner that places one spouse at a procedural disadvantage due to the deliberate or negligent conduct of the other spouse.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta in the case titled NB v. SB, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 63/2026. The Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the husband challenging an order of the Family Court that restored the wife’s right to file her written statement in pending divorce proceedings instituted under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The dispute arose during the course of matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband on the ground of cruelty. On April 18, 2024, the Family Court directed the husband to pay litigation expenses amounting to ₹11,000 to the wife within one week. Simultaneously, the Court granted the wife four weeks’ time to file her written statement in response to the divorce petition.

However, the husband failed to comply with the direction regarding payment of litigation expenses within the stipulated period. Consequently, the wife also failed to file her written statement within the prescribed timeline. Taking advantage of this delay, the husband moved an application before the Family Court seeking striking off of the wife’s defence on the ground that the statutory timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure had expired.

The Family Court initially struck off the wife’s right to file the written statement. Subsequently, however, the wife approached the Court seeking restoration of her right, contending that the delay had occurred because the husband himself had not complied with the Court’s earlier order directing payment of litigation expenses. Accepting this contention, the Family Court restored her right to file the written statement.

Aggrieved by the restoration order, the husband approached the Delhi High Court. Before the High Court, the matter evolved into a broader legal question concerning fairness, equity, and procedural conduct in matrimonial proceedings. The Court was called upon to determine whether a litigant who himself violated a judicial direction could thereafter derive procedural advantage from the resulting consequences faced by the opposite party.

The judgment is particularly important because it highlights the distinctive nature of matrimonial litigation, where strict procedural rules must often be balanced against considerations of fairness, access to justice, and substantive equality between spouses. It also reinforces the principle embedded in Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act that no party should be permitted to take advantage of his or her own wrong.

By refusing to permit the husband to benefit from his own default, the Delhi High Court reiterated that procedural law cannot become an instrument of inequity, particularly in sensitive family disputes where financial imbalance between parties may directly affect access to justice.

Arguments of the Parties:

The husband, who was the appellant before the High Court, challenged the Family Court’s decision restoring the wife’s right to file her written statement. He argued that the Family Court had erred in condoning the delay and permitting the written statement to be filed beyond the prescribed statutory period contemplated under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

According to the husband, procedural timelines prescribed under the CPC are intended to ensure expeditious adjudication and prevent unnecessary delays in litigation. He contended that the wife had failed to file her written statement within the period granted by the Family Court and that her subsequent application seeking restoration of the right to file the written statement was highly belated.

The appellant further argued that once the right to file a written statement had been struck off, the Family Court ought not to have restored the same without sufficient justification. He submitted that allowing such restoration defeated the legislative objective behind procedural timelines and encouraged laxity in compliance with court orders.

The husband also contended that the Family Court had exercised its discretion arbitrarily by overlooking the mandatory nature of the timeline prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. According to him, procedural certainty is an essential component of judicial administration, and repeated condonation of delay undermines discipline in litigation.

In support of his challenge, the appellant emphasized that matrimonial proceedings should not be indefinitely prolonged due to repeated delays on the part of one litigant. He argued that the wife had adequate opportunity to file her defence but failed to avail of the same within the time granted by the Court.

On the other hand, the wife, who appeared in person before the High Court, defended the Family Court’s order and argued that the delay in filing the written statement was directly attributable to the husband’s own conduct. She pointed out that the Family Court had specifically directed the husband to pay litigation expenses of ₹11,000 within one week, but he failed to comply with that order.

The wife submitted that the purpose behind granting litigation expenses in matrimonial matters is to ensure that the financially weaker spouse is able to effectively participate in the proceedings and defend herself properly. According to her, non-payment of litigation expenses deprived her of the necessary means to engage legal assistance and prepare an appropriate defence within the prescribed period.

She argued that the husband, having failed to comply with the Court’s own order, could not subsequently seek to derive advantage from the consequences of his default. The wife maintained that it would be fundamentally unfair and contrary to principles of equity to permit the husband to first place her at a disadvantage and then seek striking off of her defence on the basis of the resulting delay.

The respondent further contended that procedural rules are intended to advance justice and not defeat it. She argued that the Family Court correctly exercised its discretion in restoring her right to file the written statement, particularly in view of the husband’s own non-compliance with judicial directions.

Reliance was also placed upon broader principles governing matrimonial litigation, where courts are expected to adopt a humane and equitable approach rather than an unduly technical or rigid application of procedural rules. The wife submitted that matrimonial disputes concern substantive rights and personal relationships, and therefore courts should ensure that parties receive a fair opportunity to present their case.

The respondent additionally relied upon judicial precedents recognizing the discretionary power of courts to condone delay where the facts and circumstances justify such indulgence. It was argued that procedural defaults cannot be viewed in isolation when the opposite party’s own conduct has contributed to the delay.

The State was not directly involved in the dispute, as the proceedings essentially concerned inter se matrimonial rights between the parties.

Court’s Judgment:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s decision restoring the wife’s right to file her written statement. The Division Bench strongly emphasized that a litigant cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong or default, especially in matrimonial proceedings where fairness and equity play a central role.

At the outset, the Court examined the sequence of events before the Family Court. The Bench noted that on April 18, 2024, the Family Court had simultaneously granted the wife four weeks’ time to file her written statement and directed the husband to pay litigation expenses of ₹11,000 within one week. However, the husband admittedly failed to comply with the direction regarding litigation expenses within the stipulated period.

The High Court observed that litigation expenses awarded in matrimonial proceedings are not merely symbolic or discretionary payments. Such directions are intended to ensure that the financially disadvantaged spouse is able to effectively defend the proceedings and participate meaningfully in the litigation process. Timely payment of such expenses therefore assumes substantive importance in ensuring procedural fairness.

The Bench held that the husband’s non-compliance with the Family Court’s order materially contributed to the wife’s inability to file her written statement within the prescribed timeline. In these circumstances, the husband could not legitimately seek striking off of the wife’s defence on the basis of delay that arose substantially due to his own conduct.

In arriving at this conclusion, the Court relied upon the equitable principle embodied in Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 23 provides that a party cannot be permitted to take advantage of his or her own wrong while seeking matrimonial relief. Although the provision ordinarily applies at the stage of final adjudication of matrimonial disputes, the High Court observed that the underlying principle of equity extends to the conduct of parties throughout the litigation process.

The Court specifically remarked that the principle contained in Section 23 reflects a broader doctrine of fairness which prevents a litigant from deriving benefit from his own misconduct or default. According to the Bench, permitting the husband to strike off the wife’s defence after himself violating the Court’s order regarding litigation expenses would amount to rewarding inequitable conduct.

The Court observed:

“It was incumbent upon the appellant to pay the litigation expenses directed by the Family Court in time to enable the respondent to conduct her case properly. Appellant cannot be permitted, by his conduct, to put the respondent at a disadvantage and thereafter claim benefit of the same.”

This observation forms the central reasoning of the judgment and reflects the Court’s broader commitment to ensuring fairness in family law proceedings.

The Bench also rejected the husband’s argument regarding the strict and inflexible application of procedural timelines under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. While acknowledging the importance of procedural discipline, the Court clarified that procedural rules cannot be interpreted in a manner that produces injustice or denies a fair opportunity to a litigant whose delay is attributable to circumstances beyond her control.

In this context, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd. (2021). In that case, the Supreme Court had held that courts possess discretionary power to condone delay and that such discretion may even be exercised in the absence of a formal application where the facts and circumstances warrant judicial intervention.

Drawing support from this precedent, the Delhi High Court held that courts are not powerless in situations where rigid adherence to timelines would result in procedural injustice. The Bench emphasized that judicial discretion exists precisely to ensure that procedural law serves the ends of justice rather than defeating them.

The Court also took into account the unique character of matrimonial proceedings. Unlike ordinary commercial or adversarial litigation, matrimonial disputes involve deeply personal issues affecting family relationships, emotional well-being, and financial security. Courts dealing with such disputes are therefore expected to adopt a balanced and humane approach.

The Bench implicitly recognized that financial disparity between spouses can directly impact the ability of one party to effectively contest proceedings. Litigation expenses awarded under family law statutes are intended to mitigate such disadvantages and ensure parity between parties during litigation.

Another important aspect of the judgment is its reaffirmation of the distinction between procedural rules and substantive justice. The Court clarified that while procedural timelines are important for efficient adjudication, they cannot become instruments of oppression or unfair advantage. Procedural law must remain subordinate to the broader objective of securing justice between parties.

The High Court ultimately concluded that the Family Court had exercised its discretion properly in restoring the wife’s right to file the written statement. The Bench found no illegality, perversity, or arbitrariness in the impugned order warranting appellate interference.

Accordingly, the husband’s appeal was dismissed.

The ruling is significant because it reinforces equitable principles governing matrimonial litigation and highlights the responsibility of parties to comply with judicial directions in good faith. The judgment sends a clear message that courts will not permit litigants to exploit procedural defaults caused by their own non-compliance.

The decision also contributes to the evolving jurisprudence surrounding procedural fairness in family law disputes. It underscores that matrimonial litigation must not become a strategic exercise in procedural obstruction, but rather a forum where both parties receive a fair and meaningful opportunity to present their case.

By invoking both statutory equity under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act and broader principles of procedural justice, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that fairness remains the cornerstone of matrimonial adjudication in India.