The Delhi High Court dismissed a husband’s matrimonial appeal, ruling he could not penalize his wife for delayed defence filing after failing to deposit litigation expenses on time, observing that a party cannot create disadvantage for the respondent and later claim benefit from it.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a matrimonial appeal filed by a husband who challenged an order of the Family Court restoring his wife’s right to file a written statement. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that because the husband did not deposit the litigation expenses within the time granted by the court, he could not later seek to penalize the wife for the resulting delay in filing her defence.
Background of the case
The parties married on February 8, 2019. After marital differences, the wife left the matrimonial home in late 2023. The husband thereafter filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court at Dwarka.
On April 18, 2024, the Family Court directed the husband to pay Rs 11,000 towards litigation expenses within one week. The same order granted the wife four weeks to file her written statement. However, the husband did not pay the litigation expenses within the stipulated time, and consequently the wife did not file her written statement.
ALSO READ: Matrimonial Disputes | “Lawyers Should Not Fuel Allegations”: Delhi High Court
On September 20, 2024, the Family Court struck off the wife’s defence for non-filing of the written statement. The husband paid the litigation expenses only after that order was passed. The wife then moved an application seeking to set aside the September 20, 2024 order. On February 5, 2026, the Family Court allowed the application, holding that the husband was responsible for the delay since he failed to pay the litigation expenses in time.
The husband challenged this restoration order before the High Court.
Submissions by the parties
Husband (appellant):
The husband’s counsel argued that the wife’s application to set aside the order was “highly belated,” filed almost a year later without seeking condonation of delay. It was also argued that the statutory timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC had effectively been defeated. Counsel further submitted that the wife had waived her right by participating in cross-examination without seeking recall of the order for a long period. Reliance was placed on Smt. K.S. Sumi Mol v. Suresh Kumar E.K. for the proposition of speedy disposal in matrimonial matters.
Wife (respondent)
The wife appeared in person to support the Family Court’s decision to restore her right to file the written statement.
High Court’s reasoning
The High Court noted that the husband himself had breached the court’s direction by not paying the litigation expenses by April 25, 2024. The Bench emphasized equitable considerations, observing that a party who seeks strict adherence to timelines must first comply with the court’s own directions.
Referring to Section 23 of the HMA, the Court held:
“Section 23 of the HMA embodies the principle that a party cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. Though the provision applies at the stage of final adjudication, the underlying principle is one of equity and should apply to the conduct of parties throughout the proceedings.”
The Bench further observed:
“Appellant cannot be permitted, by his conduct, to put the respondent at a disadvantage and thereafter claim benefit of the same.”
On the timelines for filing a written statement, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India, noting that the upper limit for filing a written statement is directory and may be condoned in appropriate cases.
The Bench also cited Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd. to underline that courts can condone delays even without a formal application where the facts justify such a course.
Decision:
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s order dated February 5, 2026. It concluded that the Family Court had correctly exercised its discretion on equitable grounds because the husband was responsible for the delay.
The Bench held,
“The appellant, having failed to comply with the Court’s direction, cannot be permitted to contend that the respondent should suffer the consequences of delay. To permit such a course would amount to allowing the appellant to take advantage of his own default,”
Accordingly, the appeal and all pending applications were dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the merits of the pending divorce proceedings and directed the Family Court to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: Sh. Nikhil Bhatiya v. Ms. Sonam Singh Bhatiya MAT.APP.(F.C.) 63/2026
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
