Simpy Singh vs Rahul Singh

$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18.02.2026
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2025 & CM APPL. 62518/2025
SIMPY SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pranesh Marshan, Adv.
versus

RAHUL SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Dr. Rakesh Singh, Mr.
Satyendra Kr. Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the
Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) assailing the Order dated 11.07.2025 passed
by learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, South-West District,
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in GP No. 33/2024 (impugned order),
titled as “ Rahul Singh Vs. Simpy Singh ”, whereby, the learned
Family Court has dismissed the appellant’s application seeking
condonation of delay in filing the written statement and consequently,
the appellant’s defence was struck of.
2. The relevant facts are that the marriage between the appellant
and the respondent was solemnised on 28.06.2010. Twin daughters
were born out of the wedlock on 03.10.2011. Owing to matrimonial
discord, the parties have been living separately since 06.07.2018, and
the children have continued to remain in the custody of the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2025 Page 1 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:14:45

3. After around 6 years of separation, a guardianship petition i.e.,
GP No. 33/2024, was instituted by the respondent/husband. The
summons in that case were served upon the appellant on 22.04.2024.
Owing to financial constraints, the appellant engaged a counsel only
on 18.10.2024, and the written statement was e-filed on 24.10.2024
and a hard copy of the same was filed before the learned Family Court
on 28.10.2024.
4. An application for condonation of delay in filing the written
statement was also filed on 04.01.2025, subsequent to the objection
regarding the limitation. The Family Court held that there was a delay
of 65 days beyond the permissible limit of 120 days, relying upon the
judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. K.S. Sumi Mol
vs. Suresh Kumar E.K. , 2023:DHC:5963-DB, dismissed the said
application.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred the present
appeal assailing the dismissal of her application seeking condonation
of delay in filing the Written Statement.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
Record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the rejection of
the appellant’s application for condonation of delay has serious
consequences, as it affects not only the appellant but also the welfare
of the minor children in a guardianship proceeding, which ought not to
be treated on the same footing as other adversarial matrimonial
disputes. It is emphasized that the delay was neither deliberate nor
intentional, but was occasioned by compelling circumstances,
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2025 Page 2 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:14:45

including non-payment of maintenance and the appellant’s severe
financial constraints as an unemployed mother responsible for the
upbringing of twin minor daughters. It is contended that these factors
constituted sufficient cause for the delay and deserved a liberal and
justice-oriented approach.
8. He submits that it should be considered that whether there is a
deliberate and intentional attempt by a party to delay the proceedings.
It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to adopt a
harmonious and balanced approach while considering the two
judgments passed by Co-ordinate Bench this court in K.S. Sumi Mol
(supra) & Nidhi Sawnani Vs. Harsh Sawnani , 2023:DHC:9085-DB ,
as cited in the impugned order and instead applied the guidelines
framed by this court in K.S. Sumi Mol (supra ) in a rigid and
mechanical manner, resulting in grave prejudice and miscarriage of
justice.
9. Per Contra , learned counsel for respondent supports the
impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Courts. He
submits that, in the absence of any justifiable reasons being tendered
by the appellant for failure to file the written statement within
prescribed time, the learned Family Court rightly declined to take the
written statement on record.
10. Reliance is placed on K.S. Sumi Mol (supra), wherein specific
guidelines were framed for the expeditious disposal of cases relating
to marriage and family disputes, to be followed by all Family Courts
within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. Particularly, emphasis is
laid on the observation that the learned Family Court has no power to
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2025 Page 3 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:14:45

condone the delay beyond 120 days from the date of service of
summons for filing the written statement.
11. However, in that case it was also recorded that the respondent
therein had been lingering on the divorce petition and was not
conducting trial diligently. Moreso, the respondent was playing hide
and seek from the Family Court therein. In the present case, no such
argument has been placed before us.
12. At the outset, it is necessary to take into consideration the
relevant law, in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku And Ors. ( 2005) 4
SCC 480, the Supreme Court had occasion to interpret and construe
the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC which provides the
time line for filing the written statements and held as under:
“42. Ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed
by Order 8 Rule 1 has to be honoured. The
defendant should be vigilant. No sooner the
writ of summons is served on him he should
take steps for drafting his defence and filing
the written statement on the appointed date of
hearing without waiting for the arrival of the
date appointed in the summons for his
appearance in the court. The extension of
time sought for by the defendant from the
court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as
the case may be, should not be granted just
as a matter of routine and merely for the
asking, more so, when the period of 90 days
has expired. The extension can be only by
way of an exception and for reasons assigned
by the defendant and also recorded in writing
by the court to its satisfaction. It must be
spelled out that a departure from the time
schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 of the
Code was being allowed to be made because
the circumstances were exceptional,
occasioned by reasons beyond the control of
the defendant and such extension was
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2025 Page 4 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:14:45

required in the interest of justice, and grave
injustice would be occasioned if the time was
not extended.

43. A prayer seeking time beyond 90 days for
filing the written statement ought to be made
in writing. In its judicial discretion exercised
on well-settled parameters, the court may
indeed put the defendants on terms including
imposition of compensatory costs and may
also insist on an affidavit, medical certificate
or other documentary evidence (depending
on the facts and circumstances of a given
case) being annexed with the application
seeking extension of time so as to convince
the court that the prayer was founded on
grounds which do exist.

44. The extension of time shall be only by
way of exception and for reasons to be
recorded in writing, howsoever brief they
may be, by the court. In no case, shall the
defendant be permitted to seek extension of
time when the court is satisfied that it is a
case of laxity or gross negligence on the part
of the defendant or his counsel. The court
may impose costs for dual purpose: (i) to
deter the defendant from seeking any
extension of time just for the asking, and (ii)
to compensate the plaintiff for the delay and
inconvenience caused to him.

45. However, no straitjacket formula can be
laid down except that the observance of time
schedule contemplated by Order 8 Rule 1
shall be the rule and departure therefrom an
exception, made for satisfactory reasons
only. We hold that Order 8 Rule 1, though
couched in mandatory form, is directory
being a provision in the domain of
processual law. ”
(emphasis added)

13. The Supreme Court in Kailash (supra) has also held that Order
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2025 Page 5 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:14:45

VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is procedural and its purpose is to expedite the
hearing and not to scuttle the same. The rules of procedure should be
interpreted to advance the cause of justice. The court held as under:
28. All the rules of procedure are the
handmaid of justice . The language employed
by the draftsman of processual law may be
liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that
the object of prescribing procedure is to
advance the cause of justice. In an
adversarial system, no party should
ordinarily be denied the opportunity of
participating in the process of justice
dispensation . Unless compelled by express
and specific language of the statute, the
provisions of CPC or any other procedural
enactment ought not to be construed in a
manner which would leave the court helpless
to meet extraordinary situations in the ends
of justice. The observations made by Krishna
Iyer, J. in Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of
Bihar [(1975) 1 SCC 774] are pertinent:
(SCC p. 777, paras 5-6)
“The mortality of justice at the hands
of law troubles a judge's conscience
and points an angry interrogation at
the law reformer.
The processual law so dominates in
certain systems as to overpower
substantive rights and substantial
justice. The humanist rule that
procedure should be the handmaid, not
the mistress, of legal justice compels
consideration of vesting a residuary
power in judges to act ex debito
justitiae where the tragic sequel
otherwise would be wholly inequitable.
… Justice is the goal of jurisprudence
— processual, as much as
substantive.””
(emphasis added)

14. This Judgment was also relied upon by the Supreme Court in
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2025 Page 6 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:14:45

the case of Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 613, wherein, a delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement
delay in filing of the written statement was condoned in a suit for
injunction and held that:-
“3. Admittedly, the suit for injunction filed by
the plaintiff is not the one which is governed
by the Commercial Court Act, 2015.
Therefore, the time limit for filing of the
written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of
CPC is not mandatory in view of the
judgment of this Court reported as „Kailash
v. Nankhu‟ reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480.”

15. It is a well-settled principle that, for the purposes of procedure
and evidence, the Family Court adopts a less formal approach and is
empowered to evolve its own procedure. Although Section 10 of the
Family Courts Act, 1984 makes the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 applicable to such proceedings, the Court is not
strictly bound by the technicalities thereof. The relevant sections of
the Family Court Act, 1984, are reproduced herein below-
“ 10. Procedure generally. —(1) Subject to
the other provisions of this Act and the rules,
the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other
law for the time being in force shall apply to
the suits and proceedings [other than the
proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)]
before a Family Court and for the purposes
of the said provisions of the Code, a Family
Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and
shall have all the powers of such court.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act
and the rules, the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the
rules made thereunder, shall apply to the
proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2025 Page 7 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:14:45

before a Family Court.
(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying
down its own procedure with a view to arrive
at a settlement in respect of the subject-
matter of the suit or proceedings or at the
truth of the facts alleged by the one party
and denied by the other.
xxxx
20. Act to have overriding effect .—The
provisions of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force or in any instrument
having effect by virtue of any law other than
this Act.”
(emphasis supplied)

16. Ordinarily, the timelines must be adhered to in order to ensure
expeditious disposal of family disputes. Any departure from the said
guidelines must be by way of an exception, for reasons to be
specifically recorded, and only where denial of the opportunity to file
the written statement would result in grave injustice. The time period
for filing the written statement, being procedural in nature, can, in
appropriate cases, be extended under the Family Courts Act, 1984,
provided the party seeking such extension demonstrates a sufficient
circumstance or genuine disability in filing the written statement
within the prescribed period. This determination must necessarily
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
17. In the present case, summons were issued to the appellant on
03.04.2024 and, as per the process server’s report, were served on
22.04.2024, which fact is not in dispute. Owing to acute financial
constraints and the responsibility of upbringing of twin minor
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2025 Page 8 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:14:45

daughters, the appellant was unable to engage counsel and appeared in
person before the learned Family Court on the next date fixed.
However, as the Court was vacant due to the superannuation of the
learned Presiding Officer, the appellant remained unaware that the
written statement had not been filed on her behalf. It was only after
she was able to engage counsel on a pro bono basis that the written
statement came to be filed on 24.10.2024. While it is imperative for
Courts to ensure adherence to procedural timelines so as to avoid
delays, it cannot be overlooked that the future of twin minor daughters
is at stake. Closure of the right to file a written statement would result
in grave prejudice and will be unreasonable.
18. Having regard to the settled principle that the welfare of minor
children is of paramount importance, disputes concerning such family
matters ought, as far as possible, to be decided on merits rather than
on procedural defaults. The matter is still at an initial stage and no
prejudice is likely to be caused if the written statement is taken on
record and the proceedings are allowed to continue.
19. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, and
adopting a balanced and lenient approach, this Court is inclined to set
aside the impugned order and permit the written statement to be taken
on record before learned Family Court, subject to payment of cost of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable by the appellant to
the respondent. However, the costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the
respondent shall be adjusted from the amount due towards
maintenance payable to the appellant.
20. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The Order
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2025 Page 9 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:14:45

dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Family Court is set aside and written
statement is taken on record as duly filed before the Family Court.
21. Accordingly, the present appeal, along with pending
applications stands disposed of.
22. Parties to appear before the Family Court on 10.03.2026.


VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J



RENU BHATNAGAR, J
p /Kz/nc
FEBRUARY 18, 2026/
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2025 Page 10 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:14:45