Court emphasizes equitable principles, dismisses appellant's appeal against setting aside order striking off respondent's defense due to non-payment of litigation expenses.
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the Family Court's order allowing Ms. Sonam Singh Bhatiya, the respondent, to file her Written Statement in a divorce proceeding initiated by her husband, Sh. Nikhil Bhatiya. The court emphasized the equitable principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong, thereby supporting the Family Court's discretion to set aside its previous order striking off the respondent's defense due to the appellant's delay in paying litigation expenses.
The dispute arose when Sh. Nikhil Bhatiya filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, following matrimonial discord with his wife. Despite a Family Court directive on April 18, 2024, mandating the appellant to pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent within a week, the payment was delayed, which hindered the respondent's ability to file her Written Statement within the stipulated timeframe.
The Family Court initially struck off Ms. Bhatiya's defense on September 20, 2024, due to her failure to comply with the timeline. However, Ms. Bhatiya later filed an application seeking the revival of her right to file the Written Statement, alongside a request for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
In its judgment dated May 5, 2026, the Delhi High Court, led by Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, upheld the Family Court's decision to set aside its earlier order. The High Court cited the principle of equity under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which prohibits a party from gaining advantage from its own wrong, asserting that the appellant's failure to timely pay litigation expenses impeded the respondent's compliance.
The judgment also referenced Supreme Court rulings, highlighting that the upper time limit for filing Written Statements is directory rather than mandatory, allowing for condonation of delays in suitable circumstances. The High Court noted that the Family Court appropriately exercised its discretion in this case, given the appellant's non-compliance with the court's directions.
This ruling reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fairness and equity in legal proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes, where procedural delays can significantly impact the parties involved. The appeal by Sh. Nikhil Bhatiya was dismissed, with the Delhi High Court clarifying that its observations are specific to the appeal and will not influence the ongoing case's merits before the Family Court.
The court has urged the Family Court to expedite the pending case, ensuring a swift resolution to the matter, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Bottom line:-
Family Court can exercise discretion to set aside an earlier order striking off the defence of a party if the delay or default in compliance with court directions, such as payment of litigation expenses, is attributable to the other party.
Statutory provision(s):
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 23(1)
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VIII Rule 1
Sh. Nikhil Bhatiya v. Ms. Sonam Singh Bhatiya, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2893330
